Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [28 June], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords](By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

Bills to be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Value Added Tax

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from registered disabled drivers about the increase in value added tax on petrol and other motoring costs.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): We have received a number of representations, mainly about the supply of cars to disabled persons through the Motability organisation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced on 26 June, we are taking steps to relieve these difficulties.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister accept that the increase in the minimum lending rate and the increase in VAT have had a particularly hard and damaging effect

upon disabled drivers and, indeed, those who drive the disabled? Will he say what further plans he has to give assistance to this deserving group of people, who are undoubtedly going through a difficult period?

Mr. Rees: I recognise the difficulties to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention, but the adequacy of allowances for the disabled is a ques-for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept the thanks of all those concerned with the Motability leasing scheme for the relief from VAT which has been afforded for the purchase of cars under that scheme? But will he consider, before next year's Budget, applying the same relief to cars supplied under the Motability hire-purchase scheme, which is now being introduced?

Mr. Rees: I have taken note of what my hon. Friend has said. There is no blocking order applying to inputs relating to hire purchase.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the measures taken by the Government, coupled with the huge additional increase in the price of petrol, have had a serious effect upon large numbers of disabled people? Will his right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to meet representatives of disabled drivers and disabled passengers to discuss their problems with them?

Mr. Rees: That again is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am sure that he will have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

£ Sterling

Mr. Jesse: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how recent changes in the exchange value of the £sterling are likely to affect the prospects for the British economy.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Biffen): Changes in the exchange rate affect the economy in different ways. The recent rise in the rate may make it harder in the short run to sell our exports, but the rise also lowers the cost of imported raw materials.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, as a result of the new strength of the pound, he is able to forecast whether, over a period of years, the benefits from lower import prices will be greater than the disadvantages through higher export prices?

Mr. Biffen: No. Any such forecast would be very hazardous.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to prevent statements emanating from Government quarters which suggest that a rise or fall in the exchange rate causes an acceleration or a deceleration of inflation?

Mr. Biffen: I have noted the views of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not regard it as my responsibility to correct my colleagues, who I am certain are well able to take responsibility for their own views.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence about the desirability of ending the practice whereby overseas defence sales are quoted in dollar prices?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentle. man at all concerned about the growing anxiety expressed by leaders of British industry—particularly yesterday, according to the Financial Times, which mentioned the heads of Courtaulds, of Wedgwood and of Gestetner—that the present sterling rate is totally incompatible with the survival of their companies as viable businesses? Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to give us the date on which he will follow the example of Switzerland, which in the end decided to abandon its monetary policy for the sake of saving its industry?

Mr. Biffen: Representations made by people such as the chairman of Courtaulds will obviously be taken into account, and certain areas of British industry, particularly with a low value added tax content, are bound to experience difficulties with a movement in the exchange rate, as we have seen recently. I shall bear very much in mind the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who, during the

Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, said that the exchange rate of sterling was something that was substantially beyond the control of the Government.

Mr. Healey: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has followed the Swiss experience. Since Switzerland abandoned monetary policy for the time being, its exchange rate has reverted to a more normal pattern. That is the best possible example, coming from a country whose monetary policies I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has admired, to show that it is possible for the Government to influence the exchange rate.

Mr. Biffen: The Government have no intention of abandoning their monetary policy. I am surprised that someone as intellectually powerful as the right hon. Gentleman should suppose that the abandonment of that policy would lead to a reversion of sterling.

European Community (Council of Finance Ministers)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet other EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I expect to meet my fellow Economic and Finance Ministers of the Community at the next meeting of the Finance Council on 17 September. I shall be reporting the outcome of that meeting to the House.

Mr. Skinner: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman does meet them, will he remind them that the figure of more than £1,000 million, which is now our contribution to the Common Market budget, is looming large in our balance of payments account every month? Will he also ask them what the reaction will be when we ask for a reconsideration of our contribution over the next two years? If, for example, the Finance Ministers refuse to agree to the concessions for which we are asking, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a guarantee to this House that he will say forthrightly to them that there will be no further contribution from Britain until this matter is resolved?

Sir G. Howe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all my right hon.


Friends lose no opportunity of reminding our colleagues in the Community of the importance that we attach to securing a substantial reduction in our budgetary contribution. I am glad to say that as a result of the more constructive attitude adopted by this Government towards the Community the Prime Minister was able to achieve substantial progress in getting recognition of our case at the Strasbourg meeting. We shall continue to press the case with as much conviction as the hon. Gentleman, but with rather more success than he has had.

Mr. Skinner: I have never been there.

Mr. Budgen: If my right hon. and learned Friend receives any advice from the financial leaders of the EEC to the effect that he should follow the Swiss example of abandoning monetary restraints, even temporarily, will he remind them that the Swiss example is not relevant here, that the Swiss have an entirely different social and financial history, that they have a background of nil rates of inflation and that the Swiss people are unlikely to take up a large increase in the money supply in the way that the British people would?

Sir G. Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to those points, and also to the fact—which was implicit in what he said—that the Swiss response was founded upon the successful record to which he drew attention, rather than upon the record of disastrous money supply growth that we inherited from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mr. Denzil Davies: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware, the European Commission has put forward a proposal to increase the VAT ceiling from 1 per cent. Will he make it clear to the House that the Government will not agree to that increase—in fact, to any increase—until the question of the budgetary contribution has been satisfactorily resolved?

Sir G. Howe: The Government certainly do not regard as acceptable any proposal of that kind for increasing the Community's resources. Quite apart from that, the case for a reduction in our budgetary contribution has to be pursued, and will be pursued, in its own right.

Mr. Hordern: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Government propose to join the European monetary system?

Sir G. Howe: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House recently, we shall be reaching our next stage of consideration of that after the review of the convergence mechanism has been undertaken, which will not be before September of this year.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Chancellor try to persuade his EEC colleagues to slash their expenditure on regional aids by as much as the Government have slashed ours, otherwise areas such as the North-West will increasingly suffer from the vast aids that European countries give to their depressed regions?

Sir G. Howe: It is certainly a legitimate part of the Community's organisation to see that the contributions to regional and other aid programmes do not get out of line with each other so as to produce unfair competition of that kind. But, beyond that, one must recognise that the success of our Community partners depends largely upon the fact that they have a much more sensible system of taxation than we do. It is to that that we are moving as a result of the measures that we are taking.

Unemployment Benefits (Taxation)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the taxation of short-term unemployment benefits.

Mr. Biffen: As our pre-election manifesto made clear, it is our aim to bring short-term unemployment benefits within the tax system. We are at present examining ways of overcoming the administrative difficulties which have up to now stood in the way of taxing short-term benefits, and when this examination is complete I shall let the House know of our conclusions.

Mr. McCrindle: I accept that there are administrative difficulties, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable resentment among those who are employed against those who choose to stay unemployed, even when jobs are


available? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the taxation of short-term unemployment benefits would provide a considerable incentive to take up jobs where they were available?

Mr. Biffen: Yes.

Mr. Dubs: How many extra civil servants will be needed to bring that about?

Mr. Biffen: Extra staff costs in relation to taxing short-term benefits for the unemployed would be relatively modest, but it is true that the wider-scale scheme would involve quite substantial increases in staff. That is precisely why an examination is now being undertaken, so that a proper and up-to-date evaluation can be made.

Mr. Cockeram: Does my right hon. Friend accept that when social security and unemployment benefits are raised in line with inflation it produces distortions with those whose wages are not rising in line with inflation, and that when those distortions are magnified by the failure to tax the former while taxing the latter it produces the encouragement to stay out of work?

Mr. Biffen: I very much accept that point, and it underlines the necessity for the review.

Money Supply

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the current rate of growth of the M3 money supply.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the eight months to mid-June, sterling M3 grew at an annual rate of 13·3 per cent.

Mr. Wainwright: In view of the disappointingly slow progress towards the target of money supply that he announced in the Budget, will the Chancellor explain whether he is now abandoning a policy that could not reach accomplishment without killing off large sections of British industry?

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman totally misunderstands the position. In respect of money supply growth, the Government inherited a situation that was badly off course, and was getting more so. When we came into office the money supply growth rate was well above the top limit of the 8 to 12 per cent. range

set by the previous Government, and the action taken in the Budget, including the increase in minimum lending rate, cannot be expected to have had an effect on that yet.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Chancellor agree with the statement last night by one of the senior managing directors of the Union Discount Company, that to bring the money supply back within the targets interest rates will have to go higher before the end of the year?

Sir G. Howe: I should not like to accept that proposition. What I have no doubt about is that to overcome the explosive rate of growth of the money supply that we inherited it has been necessary for the Government to introduce firm monetary policies, including an increase in minimum lending rate, and it remains necessary for us to adhere to that. I hope that it will not be necessary to go beyond that. I cannot emphasise too strongly that these measures are an inevitable response to that part of the inheritance that we received.

Exchange Control

Mr. David Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the strength of the £ sterling, what further steps he intends to take to reduce exchange controls.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 18 July.

Mr. Price: Following my right hon. and learned Friend's written answer yesterday, what is the extent of the remaining exchange control restrictions, and what economic or, indeed, national purpose do they serve?

Sir G. Howe: As my hon. Friend appreciates, we have made two substantial reductions in the scope of exchange control. The substantial part that remains concerns arrangements for the control of portfolio investment outside investments denominated in EEC currencies. The apparatus of which they represent a part has been with us for about 40 years, and we are proceeding to its progressive dismantlement at which I judge to be the right pace in the circumstances.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on a point in the original question, namely, the implication that the relaxation of exchange control that he has just announced will reduce the strength of the £ sterling? How does he reconcile such a view, if he holds it, with what his right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said a moment ago, that there was nothing that the Government could do that would influence the sterling exchange rate?

Sir G. Howe: As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, the sterling exchange rate is substantially set by market judgments. The case for reduction in exchange control stands in its own right and is justified for that purpose. The fact that sterling now stands high provides circumstances in which it becomes possible to make those changes.

Mr. Higgins: If the Chancellor is anxious to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and waste of resources, will he say whether it will still be necessary for travel agents and others issuing foreign currency to individuals to mark their passports? Secondly, is it still proposed that those buying shares in Europe will have to leave them with a recognised depository?

Sir G. Howe: At present, the basic arrangements for applications under the existing exchange control regime remain in force. I shall have to look at the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend, but it would be our intention to proceed towards the removal of unnecessary administrative obstacles as quickly as possible.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Why is the Chancellor so pleased with the high level of sterling, bearing in mind the statements by prominent industrialists about the harm that it is doing to manufacturing industry? In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's addiction to market economics, does he agree that the higher the cost of our exports the fewer we sell, and that the cheaper the cost of our imports the more we buy, to the detriment of our manufacturing industry? Why does he not instruct the Bank of England to intervene sensibly in the market?

Sir G. Howe: The movement of the exchange value of the £ sterling has effects on both factors to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but experience

under successive Governments has shown that attempts to predetermine or determine the proper exchange value for the pound sterling are difficult to achieve, even if it is right to try to do so.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Cryer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made against the increase in value added tax.

Mr. Peter Rees: Over 400 representations, covering a wide range of subjects, have been received since the Budget.

Mr. Cryer: When the Minister receives representations from his Cabinet and ministerial colleagues and other hard-hearted and prosperous-looking Tories about taxing the unemployed and those on social security benefits, will he remember that VAT hits those on lower incomes much harder than it does the rich people who put the Tory Party into office? Will he accept that the swingeing increases in VAT help to underline the OECD report, published today, which suggests that this country is heading quickly towards recession and increasing inflation? Surely the VAT increases will accelerate that trend?

Mr. Rees: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I remind him of what his right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said at an earlier stage, namely, that VAT is nothing like as regressive as was at first thought.

Mr. Cryer: I do not agree with that.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that when the previous Conservative Government left office the flat rate of VAT was 10 per cent. and it is now 15 per cent., so the intervening five years of Socialist Government correspond with the 5 per cent. increase? We are having to pay 1 per cent. VAT per annum for Socialism. Is he further aware that most people are confident that five years from now the Government will have added a reduction in VAT to the reductions already made in direct taxation?

Mr. Rees: I note my hon. Friend's optimistic prognostications.

Mr. Heffer: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman had his attention drawn to the speech by Sir Maurice Laing and


other constuction employers, who are no longer as enthusiastic as they were about Government policy in relation to the construction industry? Does he agree that the Government's proposals on value added tax will be disastrous for the future of that industry?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that VAT is not imposed on new building projects.

Inflation

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated year-on-year rate of inflation for the period 3 May 1979 to 3 May 1980.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the rate of inflation at the end of December 1979.

Mr. Biffen: I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) on 18 June 1979.

Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of inflation that we are experiencing at present and are likely to experience until 3 May next year is virtually the entire responsibility of the profligate pre-election spending spree engaged in by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Healey) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Biffen: I have no doubt that, given the time lag, the monetary expansion associated with the closing months of the previous Government will bear a major responsibility for price rises over the coming few months.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing a special cost of living index for the elderly based on their pattern of spending, which is entirely different from the norm, and increase pensions based on that index?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that separate assessments are made for the purposes of calculating the cost of living, but I shall certainly bear that point in mind.

Mr. Marlow: When my right hon. Friend is considering the elderly, will he consider the possibility of reviewing old age pensions twice as opposed to once a year?

Mr. Biffen: It would be misleading if I encouraged my hon. Friend to be optimistic about that course.

Mr. Winnick: At what stage will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell his Cabinet colleagues that enough is enough and that the Government's present monetarist policies are leading to totally unacceptable levels of inflation and hardship?

Mr. Biffen: The present monetarist policies have the wholehearted support of the Cabinet and are recognised as the essential precondition for a reduction in the rate of inflation.

Minimum Lending Rate

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the current level of minimum lending rate is having on his economic policy.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to promote a reduction in interest rates in London.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Control of monetary growth is central to our economic policy. The commitment to progressive reductions in the public sector borrowing requirement and cuts in public expenditure should mean that, as they take effect, less emphasis has to be placed on interest rates to secure our monetary objectives. The increase in the minimum lending rate was necessary immediately to reduce the excessive rate of growth of the money supply. It should be possible to allow a fall in interest rates when we can be sure that monetary growth is under control.

Mr. Bottomley: When is that likely to be?

Sir G. Howe: As I stated in my answer, as the reductions in public expenditure and public spending plans foreshadowed in the Budget Statement take effect. My hon. Friend must understand—and Labour Members must understand equally clearly—that when we came into office we were committed to plans for the expansion of public expenditure that were quite unrealistic and unsustainable. They are being reduced, and that will be one of the factors that will lead to the result that my hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Jay: Is it not folly to meet a temporary strength in the exchange value of


sterling by relaxing exchange controls rather than by lowering interest rates? In that case, interest rates will never come down, with all the damage that that will do to industrial investment and productivity in the long term.

Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that the case for relaxation of exchange control stands fairly and squarely on its merits. The case for achieving lower interest rates is plainly equally desirable, but until the rate of growth of the money supply and public spending plans are brought under control it would be folly to reduce interest rates just for the sake of doing so.

Mr. Latham: Has my right hon. and learned Friend heard even the faintest whisper of pleasure from Labour Members about the decision of the building societies to postpone any increase in mortgage rates to 1 January next year, if indeed it ever happens at all?

Sir G. Howe: I have not, but I listen expectantly and with hope every day.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Chancellor confirm that if the growth in bank lending does not moderate in the next few months he will have no alternative but to put up interest rates in order to keep within the monetary targets?

Sir G. Howe: I would not expect that to happen, but I emphasise that the rate of growth of bank lending was one of the aspects of monetary expansion that was occurring when we took office, so we inherited this situation. All these measures that are necessary to restore control of the monetary balance of our economy are the responsibility, fairly and squarely, of the previous Government.

Recycled Products

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax concessions he is contemplating for recycled products; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Rees: None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Do Treasury Ministers accept the principle that it is proper to use the fiscal system to encourage the use of recycled products?

Mr. Rees: We certainly do not accept the principle that VAT is a suitable

mechanism to provide incentive to increase the use of recycled products.

Oil Prices

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect recent oil prices have had on the Budget assumptions.

Mr. Biffen: The recent increase in oil prices, while affecting economic prospects for both the world and the United Kingdom and hence the background to the Budget, does not materially affect the economic strategy to which the Government are committed. Indeed, it confirms the need to maintain strict control of monetary growth and to reduce Government borrowing in order to reduce inflation.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister take the opportunity to explain clearly to the House and the country that the increase in oil prices inevitably represents a cut in our standard of living, which must be met? Does he agree that the increase in oil prices is sucking money into the system and that this, combined with high interest rates, is making the achievement of control of the money supply ever more difficult?

Mr. Biffen: On the first part of my lion. Friend's question, there is no doubt that the increase in oil prices involves a transfer of resources from the OECD industrialised sector of the world economy to the oil-producing sector. To that extent it must necessitate an adjustment in living standards throughout the Western world. On the second part of the question, the movement of moneys, associated with oil price increases, underlines the importance of having a relatively free exchange rate. Otherwise, we shall find ourselves in the position of having serious money supply difficulties. That would be the inevitable result of a rigid exchange rate in the face of such movements.

Mr. Benn: In the light of the OECD report that the world may be heading for a slump, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the desirability of high interest rates? In view of the fact that the lifting of exchange control will mean that higher profits made as a result of the Budget can be as easily invested


abroad as at home—as has so often happened in the past—can he avoid a double blow to the prospects for British economic recovery?

Mr. Biffen: The necessity for high interest rates is explained by the need to finance a borrowing requirement of £8,000 million. The reason for liberalising exchange control stands in its own right. We believe that there should be the opportunity for British industry to invest freely on a world scale, because we believe that the best way to fight a prospective slump is by encouraging a world concept of trade and investment.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but if the pound goes on as it is now, rather than being the equivalent of $1·80, which it would be without oil, is it not true that unless something is done to make the pound truly free there is a great danger that we shall become the greatest industrial cemetery in Europe?

Mr. Biffen: I welcome the stress that my hon. Friend puts upon the words " truly free ". What is now happening underlines the argument for liberalism rather than protectionism.

Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the prediction by OECD, on the same assumptions that the Government made about the fall in the growth of the domestic produce in the coming year, that unemployment will be 200,000 higher in a year than it is today?

Mr. Biffen: I shall follow the course invariably set by the previous Government of not making a forecast of future levels of unemployment.

Premium Bonds

Mr. Costain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he is taking to ensure that the £25 and £50 premium bond prizes are retained.

Mr. Peter Rees: No decision has yet been made about the retention of the £25 and £50 prizes in the prize structure to apply from 1 January 1980. We hope to make an announcement before the end of September.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister not appreciate that this is an innocent form of gambling, which gives a lot of pleasure

to elderly people who take the view that they would rather have a chance of winning £25 than the more remote chance of winning £25,000? Are not the Government committed, when they sell these bonds, to honour their pledge?

Mr. Rees: I hope that my hon. Friend will not take my answer as reflecting on the innocence or otherwise of gambling or of premium bonds. The temporary suspension of the smaller range of prizes is entirely due to the backlog caused by the industrial action that occurred earlier in the year.

Mr. Latham: Would it not be possible, as a means of getting rid of the backlog caused by a strike under the previous Government, to have more than one draw a month, instead of reducing the prizes?

Mr. Rees: I note my hon. Friend's remarks, but I do not believe that that would speed up the clearance of the backlog. However, we hope to resume these prizes in due course, and an announcement will be made before the end of September.

Incomes Policy

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his present policy in regard to the possible introduction of either a voluntary or statutory incomes policy.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no plans for introducing such a policy.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the Chancellor accept that that answer will be reassuring to those trade unionists who believe that Government researches into the creation of a standard of living index is a forerunner to the introduction of a statutory incomes policy? That fear can now be put to rest. Does the Chancellor agree that trade union wage bargainers should now try to get for themselves wage agreements that will at least protect their members from any increases in the cost of living?

Sir G. Howe: I can understand why trade union wage bargainers might wish to achieve such a result. The reality is that in a society where growth over the past five years has been at or below 1 per cent., and where our total national resources are practically static, it would be unrealistic for trade union bargainers


to believe that they could protect their members' living standards against the changes that are taking place. The reality to which they should pay attention—and it is crucial that they should—is the limitation on the resources available to the organisation for which their members work. It is only in that sense that we can achieve some reconciliation between the outcome of responsible collective bargaining and the realities which the nation must accept.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the experience of prices and incomes control and statutory incomes policies over the past 20 years confirms that inflation has always been higher at the conclusion of such policies? Therefore, will he resist any temptation to indulge in such policies in the future?

Sir G. Howe: It is the experience to which my hon. Friend draws attention, and which has been shared by Governments of both parties, that leads us to the conclusion that the whole thrust of our policies should be designed to avoid that kind of arbitrary action.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Reverting to the Chancellor's original reply, is he aware that those of us who have been here for some years know that each Government give a pledge against an incomes policy and within months they break it? How long does he intend to keep to his original pledge'?

Sir G. Howe: For the reasons that I have given, the experience of each Government has fortified successive Governments. Certainly it has fortified the determination of this Government. The whole thrust of our policies is designed to avoid recourse to the kind of arbitrary action that has proved so unsuccessful in the past, under Governments of both parties.

Unemployment Benefits

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the loss of revenue resulting from tax exemption of short-term benefits.

Mr. Biffen: The latest estimate based on expenditure for 1978–79 in the United Kingdom calculated at benefit rates apply-

ing during the year is approximately £400 million.

Mr. Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that short-term benefits are exempt from taxation is a prime reason for people becoming caught in the unemployment trap? Will he assure the House that early action will be taken to tax all income alike to remedy this awful anomaly?

Mr. Biffen: I am in broad sympathy with that view. No doubt my hon. Friend heard the earlier exchanges concerning unemployment benefits, which indicated that a review was being undertaken.

Mr. John Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the financing of long-term unemployment benefits will be a greater problem under the present Government than taxing short-term unemployment benefits?

Mr. Biffen: Although I do not doubt that unemployment is likely to rise over the next year, I must say that condemnation comes ill from the Labour Party, which presided over a massive increase in unemployment during the previous Parliament.

Stamp Duty

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much annual revenue he estimates would be lost by reducing stamp duty on the sale of houses by 50 per cent.

Mr. Biffen: A total of £55 million this year and £85 million in a full year, on the assumption that each rate of duty on residential property was halved from 1 August.

Mr. Smith: is my right hon. Friend aware that quite modest houses now attract a severe level of stamp duty because of the exceptional inflation that has occurred in the property market? Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot do everything at once, will he please take some action to ease the burden on house buyers when he next examines taxation changes?

Mr. Biffen: A useful debate was held on this subject on the Report stage of the Finance Bill yesterday, following the initiative of two of my hon. Friends. I


do not think that I can go beyond what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, in answering that debate.

Mr. Cryer: Would not a reduction in stamp duty, particularly at the lower level of house prices, assist potential owner-occupiers? Would it not also materially assist if the Government considered getting rid of the solicitors' conveyancing monopoly so that their lavish charges are reduced to help owner occupiers, or are the Government not interested in that kind of thing?

Mr. Biffen: The conveyancing monopoly falls outside the responsibility of the Treasury, but I must point out that it is easy enough to suggest means of depriving the Government of revenue but extremely hazardous when we have a public borrowing requirement of £8,000 million.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Dormand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce further income tax concessions to assist disabled persons.

Mr. Peter Rees: I consider that assistance to the disabled can be more effectively provided through the social security system.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware of the particular difficulties facing the disabled, particularly in view of the savage rise in VAT? Will he consider making a tax allowance on clothing for the disabled?

Mr. Rees: Although I recognise the need to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention, it is a long-accepted principle that deductions should be allowed only for costs actually incurred in the course of a job and should not be related to the particular circumstances of an individual.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the fact that within the short period that the Government have been in office the price of petrol has increased from below 80p to £1·20, will they now think about the additional 10p tax which they have imposed on petrol, because of its effect on the mobility of disabled persons?

Mr. Rees: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the mobility

allowance has been increased to take account of that.

Married Women's Incomes

Miss Fookes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to end the current practice whereby a married woman's income is deemed to be that of her husband.

Mr. Peter Rees: I am considering this matter and will be making a statement in due course.

Miss Fookes: When my hon. and learned Friend makes that statement will he jettison this antiquated Victorian principle and put the matter on a proper basis, once and for all?

Mr. Rees: If and when the statement is made we shall be considering both antiquated Georgian and Victorian principles.

European Monetary System

Mr. Straw: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken towards the United Kingdom's membership of the European monetary system; and when he intends that the United Kingdom should become a full member.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although we do not participate in the exchange rate arrangements of the EMS, we are members of the system and have recently deposited 20 per cent. of our reserves against European currency units. We shall consider our position on the exchange rate arrangements later in the year.

Mr. Straw: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall giving an interview in April in the monetary letter " Europe " in which he expressed substantial reservations about EMS? Does he still hold those reservations, and, if so, what are they?

Sir G. Howe: Everybody who has considered this subject with any care recognises that the arguments are by no means all one way and has some reservations about them. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall be reviewing our position after the matter has proceeded as far as September.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Chancellor agree that to enter the EMS system fully would


be to take a significant step along the road towards a united federal Europe?

Sir G. Howe: I know that that view is held by some people, including my hon. Friend. It is not the view taken by those who participate fully in the system at the moment.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Ql. Mr. Forman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to duties in this House, I shall have further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.

Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend make clear. preferably in answer to this question, that the recent welcome decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to liberalise exchange controls was an act of economic self-confidence in this country, that it is part of a long-term policy which can bring continuing financial benefits to this country long after oil and gas have been exhausted, and that it is in marked contrast to the attitude of creeping protectionism so evident on the Labour Benches?

The Prime Minister: I agree that the action of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in further relaxing exchange controls was an act of confidence, and that the investment that we shall obtain overseas will be of long-term benefit to this country, and indeed will be an investment when North Sea oil has gone.

Mr. Weetch: Will the Prime Minister, in what I am sure is a very busy day of engagements, refresh her mind as to the virtues of abrasive competition and make a short, sharp visit to Chancery Lane to the headquarters of the Law Society? Will she tell that body, in stern language, that some of the restrictive practices in certain areas of legal services are contrary to the spirit of competition for which her Government purport to stand? Will she further underline—[HoN. MEMBERS: " Too long."] Will she further underline that the restrictive solicitors'

monopoly of conveyancing, which is an onerous burden on those who buy and sell, will be swept away by her new broom?

The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, a study is being made of this problem, I think under Henry Benson, and it would be best to see how he reports before making any further comment.

Mr. Michael Morris: When my right hon. Friend meets the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka will she convey to him the best wishes of the Britsh people and reflect that that country, despite its difficulties, has kept true to parliamentary democracy? Will she also reflect that the most positive way of helping that country would be to look favourably on the Mahawehli Ganja project, which is now before her Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I shall convey my hon. Friend's best wishes and mine to the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and say how very much we value those Commonwealth nations that are still fully democratic. I shall bear in mind the other comment made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. James Lamond: As the right hon. Lady continually claims that because she has a mandate from the country she must press ahead with legislation against the rights of trade unionists, may I ask whether she accepts that trade union leaders have every right to fight this legislation as strongly as they can because they have a mandate from their members to do so?

The Prime Minister: The ordinary people of this country also have rights against powerful institutions. After the events of last winter, I believe that we have a mandate—which includes the wishes of many trade union members—to go ahead with legislation on secondary picketing and closed shops and to help with secret ballots. If we were to put that legislation to a secret ballot, I believe that we should get overwhelming support for it.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I have just given.

Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries today about the demands of council house tenants from all over the country to buy their own homes? Will she let us know when we can expect to see the Housing Bill? A number of Labour-controlled authorities seem to be determined to prevent people from owning their own homes.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that a number of complaints are being received from ordinary people who live in the area of Labour-controlled authorities. They want to buy their own homes but they are being denied permission to do so. It is our intention to introduce the Housing Bill when the House returns from the recess.

Mrs. Renée Short: Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny the report in the Financial Times today that she has had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Industry and told him to prune the £125 million of Government support for the microelectronics industry? Is the right hon. Lady aware that if that industry is not developed within the next 10 years we shall become a technological backwater, importing hardware and software from abroad with no trade of our own that will be worth speaking of?

The Prime Minister: I have many meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, and very valuable they are, too. I am most anxious to do everything to encourage the microprocessor industry. I believe that the best way to do that is by the tax reliefs that we have given, which will encourage many in that business to set up in this country instead of in the United States, where so many of them started off previously.

Mr. Tapsell: Bearing in mind the recent remarks on the subject by the new President of Iraq, will my right hon. Friend take an initiative to see whether it is possible to establish an institutionalised form of dialogue between the OECD countries and the OPEC countries about a more sensible method of oil pricing in the future, in the interests of everyone?

The Prime Minister: The possibility of achieving an institutionalised dialogue between the consumer countries and the OPEC countries was discussed at the

time of the Tokyo summit. For the time being we felt that it was better to have more informal contacts, but the institutionalised form has not been ruled out.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Prime Minister aware that this week many councils have been forced to consider cutting pensioners' pocket money, home helps, nursery schools and teachers' jobs? Does the right hon. Lady approve of that meanness?

The Prime Minister: We should all like to spend as much public money as possible on the many projects that are our particular favourites. However, when a nation has been living beyond the means that its taxpayers can finance, it has to return to live within those means. Overall expenditure this year in real terms is equal to that of last year. Its distribution is a little different, but the total amount is the same. Even that amount requires a great deal of public borrowing.

Mr. Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that ordinary trade unionists agree not only with the proposals for modifying the labour laws but with her economic proposals? I urge my right hon. Friend not to take the advice of the economic cripples on the Opposition Benches.

The Prime Minister: I will refrain from taking their advice. It was catastrophic for Britain during the past five years.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Prime Minister spend a few moments in her busy day contemplating the latest opinion polls in The Daily Telegraph? Are not those polls evidence that millions of trade unionists, who the right hon. Lady alleges voted for her in the last election, realise already that they were badly conned and that voting Tory was the biggest mistake of their lives?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the position will be much better after we have introduced and passed the legislation.

Mr. Neubert: Has my right hon. Friend seen the details of the report published


today by the Price Commission? It recommends an increase in the price of gas. Is it not a remarkable proposal from an institution which, the Labour Party constantly claims, exists to keep prices down?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers, and it confirms that an increase in the price of gas was applied for on 1 April—before the election. It was granted for domestic gas on 17 May, but the Price Commission believes that that increase was insufficient.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Prime Minister know what the inflation rate and the total of unemployed persons will be by the time the House returns from the recess? Will she consider making one of her nice broadcasts and explaining to the country why the British people are being punished because of her own doctrinaire views? Is it not a fact that the real economic wreckers in this country are the Secretary of State for Industry and the right hon. Lady herself?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman enjoys my broadcasts, but I cannot promise him that I shall be broadcasting officially soon. He misunderstands what we are trying to do. We are trying to enable many of his constituents to keep more of their own earnings in their own pockets to spend in their own way.

Mr. Beith: Earlier today the right hon. Lady mentioned the need to protect individuals against large organisations. Will she arrange to have a meeting with her Law Officers later today to find out why they have been putting up such a spirited defence of the closed shop in Strasbourg?

The Prime Minister: I should not have interpreted the evidence to the European Court in that way. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am absolutely against the closed shop in principle. We shall be legislating upon that matter when the House returns from the recess.

Mr. Hal Miller: Did my right hon. Friend see the report in the Financial Times that showed that, for the first time, imports of motor vehicles and components have exceeded exports? Does she realise the serious implications of that? Will she take time today to explain to the country how that position came about during the last five months of the previous Labour Government's period of office?

The Prime Minister: I have seen that report, and I agree with my hon. Friend that part of the blame lies with the previous Government. We have given improved tax incentives, and the remedy lies in the hands of those who work for the car industry. We hope that there will be great improvements in productivity and delivery times and that sales in this country and overseas will rise.

Mr. Ashley: As the Prime Minister is alone in knowing about the reality of international problems through her visits abroad, will she find the time to find out more about the realities of the grave domestic problem of unemployment by visiting an area of high unemployment and talking to the unemployed in that area? She will discover that the innuendo from her Government that all the unemployed are scroungers is malicious and unmerited.

The Prime Minister: I must take the right hon. Gentleman to task most severely. That was a totally unwarranted comment and very unlike him. We all hate unemployment, but we all remember that it was the previous Government who increased it so much.

Mr. Michael Spicer: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier.

Mr. Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend take time to reflect on the extent to which a rising pound will force the Treasury to revise downwards its forecast of inflation and the effect that that will have on the context in which pay bargaining takes place in the autumn?

The Prime Minister: Undoubtedly, a rising pound at the levels that we are seeing now will help inflation to come


down. It is a factor that helped the previous Government, and it will help this one to combat inflation. It brings other problems with it, but I hope that it will have the effect to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her answer to the hon. Member for Antrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) about the sale of council houses? Is she aware that I have just posted a letter to a lady constituent of mine who is living with her husband and two small children on the fifteenth floor of a tower block? Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her policy of support for Sir Horace Cutler, who is selling off council houses with gardens and preventing people with modest means from living in them? Is not such a policy antifamily and anti-children?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. A large number of council tenants want the opportunity to make the investment of a lifetime and to own their homes. We shall give them that chance. They would never have got it from the previous Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East): May I ask the Leader of the House—[Interruption.] I am deeply grateful to the House for its reception. I am sure that right hon. and hon Members are very much more pleased to see me than, perhaps, is the Prime Minister. But I really rose to ask the Leader of the House whether he would kindly tell us the business for next week.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 23 JuLY—Second Reading of the Competition Bill.
Motions on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 24 JULY—Debate on a Government motion on regional industrial policy.
Motion on the Regional Development Grants (Variation of Prescribed Percentages) Order.
Motions on the Employment Protection (Handling of Redundancies Variation) Order, and the Unfair Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order.
WEDNESDAY 25 JULY—Debate on Southern Africa, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order. The motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Amendment) Order will also be taken.
Motions on the European Communities (Iron and Steel Employees Re-Adaptation Benefits Scheme) Regulations; the British Railways Board (Borrowing Powers) Order; the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Order; and the draft undertaking on the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services.
THURSDAY 26 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
FRIDAY 27 JULY—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment until Monday 22 October.

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging the debate on Southern Africa on Wednesday. In view of the dangers to Britain's position that may arise at Lusaka, we trust that the Prime Minister will herself give the House an account of the policy that she will be pursuing when she is in Lusaka.
As for the rest of the week, I am bound to tell the Leader of the House that we regard the business that he is proposing as an abuse of the procedure of the House and of the tolerance of hon. Members. Starting on Tuesday, it is quite clear that, in view of the fact that the motion on the regional development grants order will have to be taken after the regional industrial policy debate, we cannot proceed before midnight to the motions on employment protection and unfair dismissal, and that they at least must have an hour and a half each, so that it will be 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning before that important work is dealt with.
As for Monday, clearly we shall not proceed to the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order until after 10 o'clock. That is an order on which we discuss both employment and financial aid—the £35 million cut in public expenditure in Northern Ireland. In the circumstances, that is a very unfair way to treat the issues of Northern Ireland.
All this will be added to, and the business will be interrupted by the various statements that I have no doubt the Government will bring forward on the BNOC, shipbuilding and other matters next week. Really, the Leader of the House is causing this gross inconvenience because the Government want to do a bit of window dressing with the Second Reading of the Competition Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot proceed with it any further until we return after the recess. He will merely get that through, presumably, in order to go to the Conservative Party conference and say that the Government have got the Second Reading.
The right hon. Gentleman has no right to abuse the tolerance of the House in this way. In order to meet the convenience of hon. Members, he should either adjourn the House later and not on 27 July or, if he insists on doing that, should take out the Second Reading of

the Competition Bill so that the Northern Ireland business and the handling of the redundancies and unfair dismissal orders may be taken at a decent time of the day.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I can confirm to the Leader of the Opposition that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be speaking in the debate on Southern Africa.
I agree that the programme for next week is a congested one. I do not attempt to deny that. I express my regret to Northern Ireland Members, especially for the fact that their business will come on late. But we have a great deal of business and, far from disregarding the convenience of hon. Members, I have been thinking of those hon. Members who have children and family responsibilities and are anxious to join their families when the holiday period for their children has begun. I believe that it is better to go late during next week than for the House to sit another week and inconvenience hon. Members.

Mr. Molyneaux: With regard to Monday's business and the very important point made by the Leader of the Opposition, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Northern Ireland debate on the Appropriation order is one of the most important in the Northern Ireland calendar? Will he accept that it is really not good enough to push it into a time slot so late in the day?
Secondly, how can the Leader of the House and the Government justify the provision of time for the Second Reading of the Competition Bill, which cannot possibly proceed any further before October?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I can only repeat my regret at what has happened with regard to Northern Ireland business, and I shall do my best to avoid that in future.
The Competition Bill is an important measure to which the Government are committed and which we wish to put into effect as soon as possible. I believe that it is important for many people to know the Government's intentions on it as early as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: " They know already."] That is not so. The country is informed about Government proposals by means of a full debate in this House.

Mr. Onslow: Notwithstanding the continuing bickering in the various soviets to which appointments of Opposition Members appear nowadays to have to be made, will my right hon. Friend undertake to see that the necessary motion to fill vacancies on our delegation to the Council of Europe is tabled before the House goes into recess?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are hoping to make rapid progress in that matter.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Referring to Monday's business, will the Leader of the House ensure, if he persists with the proposed business for that day, that there is a business motion which allows at least four hours—which, since 1972, is the minimum time—for the debate on the Appropriation order? In doing that, which he can hardly refuse, will he bear in mind the inconvenience to the House generally in the event that it is necessary to divide the House on the firearms order?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Certainly I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall make arrangements to see that there is adequate time, the minimum of which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Farr: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement on the situation in regard to Private Members' Bills? He will be aware that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill has gone to Standing Committee C, which starts its consideration of the Bill on Wednesday. The Bill is not likely to proceed through the Committee with great pace. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of designating another Standing Committee to receive the Bills of the other 23 hon. Members who were successful in the ballot?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not aware whether the Abortion (Amendment) Bill will make rapid progress, but I shall certainly look into the question raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proposed orders on redundancy and unfair dismissal will adversely affect the protection of millions of working people? In those circumstances, does he not feel that it is wrong that they should be debated in the

middle of the night and without hon. Members on both sides of the House having had adequate opportunity to consider what the Government are proposing?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that it is desirable to have the House sitting late into the night or into the early hours of the morning, but I regard it, in existing circumstances, as the lesser of two evils.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his attitude to the Second Reading of the Competition Bill? He is asking the House to sit into the middle of the night on four successive nights, and possibly all night next Thursday. Apart from the inconvenience caused to hon. Members, we have to consider the staff of the House. Surely the Government's intentions in the Competition Bill will be made clear by the publication of the Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I must point out that it is not only the Government's intentions that are relevant, but the view of the House. It is important that hon. Members with different views on the Bill should have an opportunity to express them.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Reverting to the initial question of the Leader of the Oppositon, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that some of the propositions that are apparently to be put before the House at late hours next week involve massive allocations of public expenditure to public corporations that have not always shown the best possible appreciation of how those moneys should be used? Although hon. Members, particularly those with family responsibilities, deeply appreciate my right hon. Friend's desire to enable the House to rise early, should we not also bear in mind our responsibilities to our constituents to consider public expenditure and its implications very carefully and at times when the House can consider the matter properly?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks It is a matter of striking a balance between conflicting demands. It is not a question of the House rising early. This is the time that the House normally rises. It is a question of avoiding the House remaining here later.

Mr. John Smith: Is it not clear from the representations from many quarters that it is the House's desire that matters other than the Competition Bill should be debated on Monday? Is it not the case that the Government are coming forward with the Competition Bill at this stage because they would feel less happy about justifying the abolition of the Price Commission in November, when prices will be going through the roof?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman's point is not valid because the introduction of the Competition Bill is unlikely to affect the date of the abolition of the Price Commission by more than a few days.

Mr. Foot: Then why bring forward the Bill now?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have explained that. It is so that the House has an opportunity to express its view on an important matter.

Mr. du Cann: Does my right hon. Friend expect that the new investigative Select Committees from which so much is expected will be established before the recess so that there will be an opportunity for them at least to begin to plan their work?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I understand that at a meeting yesterday the Committee of Selection adjourned until 6.30 p.m. on Monday next, when it hopes to be able to reach conclusions on the matter.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Are we to have a statement next week on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Scotland, Wales and the English regions? If not, may we have a positive assurance that no statement will be made without the knowledge of the House and that the matter will be fully debated before the Government reach final conclusions?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is my hope that we shall have a statement on that important matter next week.

Mr. Kilfedder: With regard to the arrangement of Northern Ireland business next week, does the Leader of the House not realise that his dictatorial attitude will be regarded with anger in Northern Ireland and that he ought to reconsider the matter and make sure that Northern Ireland is given a whole day for

its business on the Appropriation order, otherwise hon. Members from Northern Ireland—and certainly myself—may have to reconsider our position?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry to have angered the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that I am being dictatorial. I am doing my best to accommodate conflicting interests.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the great disquiet in the Northern region about the problems of unemployment which will stem from the statement yesterday of the Secretary of State for Industry and allocate a full day next week to debate regional policy?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have announced a debate on regional policy on Tuesday. That should enable hon. Members from the North, as well as other hon. Members, to make their contributions.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend be affording the House the opportunity to consider the progress made on the all-party talks on the government of Scotland and the agenda for discussion at those talks?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There have been preliminary talks with those parties represented in Scotland. As a result, it has been decided that in the autumn the Government will make proposals for their consideration covering the terms of reference and items for an agenda which could provide the basis for substantive inter-party discussions. It is clear that whatever the outcome of any inter-party talks, and without prejudice to them, there is much support for the early establishment of a Select Committee for Scotland. Accordingly, when we return from the Summer Recess, I propose to bring forward a motion to set up a Select Committee.

Dr. Bray: Is the Leader of the House aware that there are minor problems with his official channels in the clearing of agreements for the appointment of the departmental Select Committees? Will he use his good offices to see that they are able to proceed on Monday?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My good offices are constantly employed in good causes.

Mr. Burden: May I remind my right hon. Friend that our manifesto contains


references to animal welfare and promises to improve certain aspects of that welfare? In view of the recent BBC2 programme on the treatment of animals in factory farms, which has caused concern among many people, will he give an undertaking that the pledges in the manifesto will be looked into soon after the Summer Recess?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly do that. The matter is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and he has heard the representations of my hon. Friend, to whose work for animals I pay tribute.

Mr. Jay: Is it not clear that the attempt to crowd all these important issues into a few days is intolerable? As the right hon. Gentleman has responsibilities to the House, as well as to the Government, will he seriously reconsider his attitude?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am thinking of the convenience of all hon. Members in this matter. I am not primarily concerned with Government business.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in a recent Northern Ireland debate I was rash enough to congratulate him on arranging for important Northern Ireland business to be taken at a civilised hour? Will he therefore consider what has been said from both sides of the House in these exchanges and see whether the important Appropriation order could be taken before the other business on Monday?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have considered how one might rearrange this business to suit better the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members, but I should be misleading the House if I said that I thought that there was a way of rearrangement which would take my hon. Friend's point into account. I am grateful to have had my hon. Friend's approbation at some point. Even if I have lost it at the moment, I hope to regain it later.

Mr. James Callaghan: Surely the Leader of the House has taken on board the easy way of rearranging business. As it stands at the moment, the House will be sitting all night or most of the night on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week. It is really not fair of the Leader of the House to im-

pose that on hon. Members. May I say that the right hon. Gentleman is totally unconvincing in his disingenuous explanation of why it is necessary to take the Second Reading of the Competition Bill on Monday. There is no real reason for it. He knows perfectly well that he will not proceed any further with it until November, and it cannot come into force for some months yet. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, if he would take that Bill out for the moment, we could then discuss the Northern Ireland business at a reasonable hour and, after several hours had been spent on that, the orders on the handling of redundancies and unfair dismissal could come up at a more respectable hour than is now proposed? I ask the Leader of the House, on behalf, I believe, of hon. Members in all parts of the House, to reconsider what he has said and to make a fresh statement tomorrow.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I always take seriously any representations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition but, as I have endeavoured to indicate, there are good reasons for the debate on the Competition Bill, and I am afraid that it is impossible to meet his request.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend say when it is proposed to take the Adjournment motion for the Summer Recess?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is proposed to debate the Adjournment motion on Thursday, and the Summer Adjournment debates will be on Friday.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Leader of the House has announced that the House will adjourn on Friday and return in October. Does he understand the increasingly difficult position of many of the poorest of our old-age pensioners, the sick and the disabled, who are already unable to afford the cost of coal, gas or electricity for heating purposes and who have to turn to using paraffin? In fact, they cannot now afford paraffin heaters. As we shall not be here during the summer, will the right hon. Gentleman please do something next week to see that these people who have to have paraffin heaters and have no other source of heating get some help towards the cost of purchasing paraffin heaters?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the importance of paraffin to old-age pensioners. We have taken measures to ensure that there is a supply of paraffin to old-age pensioners.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They cannot afford these things.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I recall also that in the recent Budget and the ancillary statement it was made clear that the present Government are introducing measures for old-age pensioners which will be of far more benefit to them financially than were any measures of the previous Government.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In trying to settle the differences of opinion which have arisen about business, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of the Summer Adjournment being moved from Friday to the following Monday, thereby releasing one day to enable the other business to be accommodated, in whichever way the Whips agree? In that event, only those concerned predominantly with the Summer Adjournment debates will need to be here. I believe that there is a general feeling towards that view in the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have considered that suggestion, but I am afraid that I cannot agree to it.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a scandal that the hard-won rights of workers, those who clock on and clock off every day, are to be filched from them in the middle of the night mainly by Tory Members of Parliament—part-time Tory Members of Parliament—who are only too anxious to get away for a three months' holiday? I warn the Leader of the House and the rest of his right hon. Friends that if we cannot stop this business inside the House then people outside will stop him in his tracks.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that it is a question of distinguishing between Members on one side of the House or the other. We all face the same basic problem. The length of the recess is only a few days longer than the one last year. Summer Recesses have been considerably longer.

Mr. Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants to clock off early a lot of us will not

mind, and will he not take too seriously the protestations from Opposition Members? If people come into the House imagining that they will not have to spend a few nights in the Chamber, they had better go elsewhere.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I should be personally sorry if the hon. Member for Bolsover clocked off early as I should lose my foil.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members who have been rising to ask questions. There is a statement to follow.

Mr. Heffer: What is magic about the date 22 October? Why is it not possible for the House to come back on 15 or 16 October? The Competition Bill could then be discussed on either of those days, and during next week we could properly debate the items to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has rightly drawn attention.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have had various suggestions put to me for the date of return. In fact, I have brought back the date of return considerably earlier than was at one time suggested.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Has the Leader of the House seen the early-day motion standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends regarding the confusion which arose in the Division on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill last Friday?
[That this House, noting the Point of Order raised by the honourable Member for Nuneaton on Wednesday 18 July, concerning confusion in the Division Lobbies and the votes of honourable Members not having been recorded during the Division on the Second Reading of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill on Friday 13 July, instructs the Committee of Selection to meet again to reconsider the composition of the Standing Committee on this Bill.]
If the right hon. Gentleman has not yet seen the motion, will he please look at it? I know that he is a sympathetic man, and I know that he, too, feels strongly on these matters. Will he ensure that it receives the consideration which many of us feel it deserves?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
It is, of course, primarily a matter for Mr. Speaker rather than for me, but I shall certainly discuss it with him.

Mr. Ennals: May I return again to the business of the House for the coming week and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by hon. Members on both sides? Why is the right hon. Gentleman being so stubborn when he normally fulfils his proper function of representing the views of the whole House? Does he not realise that he has not given a reasonable explanation of why there has to be the Second Reading of the Competition Bill on Monday? After all the representations that he has had, does he not recognise that the House gains for itself no better reputation by doing vital work during the hours of the night?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I could meet the right hon. Gentleman's point I certainly would, but I have made quite clear that I believe it to be of importance to the country that the House as a whole should have an opportunity to express its mind on this extremely important Bill.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today there have been many hon. Members, especially on this side of the House, standing and seeking to catch your eye on the Business Statement. As you have heard, it has been a cause of great concern that the House is expected to sit well into the night on orders which vitally affect many working men and women and will take away their rights. What puts some query in my mind is this. Hon. Members on the Government Benches, naturally enough, wish to support the Leader of the House as a Conservative Leader of the House and not, as many claim, as one representing the whole of the House, and they therefore tend not to—[HoN. MEMBERS: " Where

is the point of order? ]—they therefore tend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Experience has taught me that if we wait long enough, but not too long, we come to the point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his point of order.

Mr. Cryer: They therefore tend to support the Government's statements. This means that there is often an imbalance between the Labour and Conservative Benches in the number of hon. Members standing up. May I urge you, Mr. Speaker, in the name of democracy and scrutiny of this Right-wing Government who are seeking to trample on our democratic rights, to consider calling more hon. Members on the Labour Benches and not simply keeping a balance?

Mr. Speaker: It so happens that I have called 15 hon. Members from the Opposition Benches and 11 from the Government Benches.

Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not pursuing that point of order. I will take only an entirely new one.

Mr. Cook: It is evident from the business announced for next week that the House will sit every day until 4 a.m. and may go through the night on two occasions. Hon. Members may come and go as they please provided that they are present for Divisions and provided there are sufficient hon. Members to keep the debate going. The Chair, however, has at its command only four Members, including yourself, Mr. Speaker. Are you confident, Sir, that you will be able to maintain the Chair for that period?

Mr. Speaker: I regret that point of order because it will make it necessary for me to volunteer, with the Deputy Speaker, to do some night work.

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD

4.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): I am now able to make a statement, Mr. Speaker, about the Government's policy towards the National Enterprise Board.
Over the last few weeks I have carefully reviewed the full range of the NEB's activities. My colleagues and I have had several discussions with the chairman and the NEB board. I have, too, met the board's regional directors when I visited Liverpool and Newcastle. I pay tribute, as I have before, to the sense of public service and the energy of all concerned with the NEB.
But the House knows that we opposed the Industry Acts of 1975 and 1979, and, in our manifesto, we promised to reduce the NEB's powers. We favour the encouragement of private initiative and enterprise, not the promotion of public ownership. But it will take time to restore the full vitality of the private sector.
In the meantime, the NEB will have a continuing role for those companies which have been in difficulties and for which it now has a responsibility, as long as the business concerned has a prospect of viability and no solution based on the private sector is available. If other cases arise where the private sector is unable to provide a solution to a company's difficulties, receivership will normally be the right course. In a wholly exceptional case, circumstances could arise in which the NEB might—but only on the Government's initiative—provide temporary and tapering support, with the aim of restoring the company to commercial health as quickly as possible.
Given that the NEB has this role, I have considered whether there is any other activity that it could undertake consistent with our policies. I see no public benefit in enabling the NEB to act as a general merchant bank, and its powers to promote businesses, or buy shares in them, will be restricted within very clearly defined limits. Our policy, as the manifesto envisaged, is that the greater part of the NEB portfolio should be sold as circumstances permit, having regard to the interests of the taxpayer and the companies. I look to the NEB to make disposals to the value of £100 mil-

lion in the current financial year, as foreshadowed in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget Statement. However, I do not think that it is in the public interest, or in the interest of the companies concerned, to identify them now or specify the timing of their disposal by the NEB. I shall also be requiring the NEB to make a substantial reduction in its expenditure in the current year and in the following years.
I exclude, however, the investments that the NEB has made in a dozen or so newly established high technology companies, chiefly concerned with computer software, microelectronics and their applications, which I believe justify special attention. The market has been discouraged in recent years from supporting such ventures. Time will, anyway, be needed for these companies to evolve before the NEB can sell them.
In the light of this, it seems sensible to use the NEB as one means of familiarising the market with new technologies. For my part, I see this role as being necessary only until the market is clearly strengthened, and I would not wish to put a term to the role now. The budget for it will be limited but clearly defined. The objective will be to secure, in each case, the maximum amount of private investment, with a view to full private ownership in each case as soon as practicable. The NEB will be able to reinvest some of its receipts from disposals of these companies in new high technology ventures, but only in partnership with private capital. A market that has met the huge risks of North Sea exploration should find no insuperable difficulty here.
The Government are also much concerned with the problems of the areas of high unemployment. An element of that regional policy is that the NEB should continue to exercise an industrial investment role in the North and North-West and with small firms, seeking always to maximise private investment and with the objective of transfer of full ownership to the private sector as soon as possible. The NEB's regional role will be very similar to the industrial investment activities of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Development Agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
We shall introduce a Bill as soon as possible to give effect to these policies. 
We shall sharply reduce the financial limits laid down by the 1979 Industry Act and amend the powers of the NEB set out in the 1975 Act, in accordance with the policies that I have just announced. New guidelines will follow, which will set clear objectives for the NEB to achieve. Within that framework the NEB will have my full support.

Mr. John Silkin: I recognise that the flogging-off of assets to the tune of £100 million is a further contribution to the tax relief of the very rich and will be paid for by the nation, but will the Secretary of State say why, if he takes so strong a view about the need to give help to the regions—it is one of the ways in which he maintains that he will use the NEB—he also requires the NEB to make a substantial reduction in its expenditure in the coming year and in the following years? Does he not realise that a proper means of dealing with the regional problem is not a cut in expenditure but an increase?
Most hon. Members are concerned with today's jobs. Is not the prime need of British industry to invest for future growth? Why, then, is the right hon. Gentleman destroying a major and, in some cases, the only means of providing for it? On tomorrow's jobs, the right hon. Gentleman admits, in his own words, that it will take time to restore the full vitality of the private sector. The private sector has failed to take full advantage of the opportunities in many fields, for example, as he says, in microelectronics. It has been left to the NEB to fill the gap.
I realise that the right hon. Gentleman wishes the NEB to conduct an experiment in adult education, but to what extent will the existing schemes—the industry support scheme, the applications programme and Inmos itself—be allowed to continue?

Sir K. Joseph: The former Government so discouraged the private sector that the capacity of private enterprise needs a new economic climate for it to be properly revived. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has totally mistaken the position in respect of public education. The microprocessor applications—

Mr. Russell Kerr: This is absolute rubbish.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unfair for anyone to have to fight for a hearing.

Mr. Faulds: That is what the House is all about.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even when hon. Members do not like what they are hearing, they must be prepared to listen.

Sir K. Joseph: The microprocessor applications project has nothing whatever to do with the NEB. With Inmos there is a contractual obligation on the NEB to spend up to £25 million. Of course, future expenditure will depend upon a review when that money has been committed.

Mr. Gryils: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that all of us on the Conservative Benches will welcome his statement as a first step towards cutting down to size the spendthrift NEB? However, will he think again about Inmos? It seems that few people in the electronics industry think that it will succeed. Is it wise to let it go on spending its money when there is already plenty of activity in the microprocessor industry through other firms in this country? Can my right hon. Friend give the figure for the new budget for the NEB in the curent year?

Sir K. Joseph: The NEB is contractually committed to spend £25 million on Inmos. There is bound to be a review before any further money is committed. The amount of money available to the NEB in this year or future years will depend upon many factors, particularly upon the constraints in public spending. However, the level will be very modest compared with present expenditure.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Bearing in mind the burdensome and intractable responsibilties that the Secretary of State is leaving with the NEB, how does he expect to maintain the extremely high standard of its board and staff when all that he can offer them is, in his own words, a " temporary and tapering " future?
Does not his stubborn insistence that within nine months the NEB must liquidate no less than £100 milion of its investments at a time of uncertain and depressed markets carry the risk of a very bad bargain for the taxpayer, through forced sales?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the latter proposition is true. It is true, however, that the NEB has on its shoulders responsibilities for some very intractable inheritances from previous Governments. That is why it seems to make sense that we should use in a very limited way the board and the staff, who have to be there anyway while the responsibilities remain upon then to carry out the two very modest but significant roles that have been identified for the NEB.

Mr. Benn: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us a new definition of an entrepreneur as someone who familiarises the market with new technology, and for saying that that is best done by public enterprise? That will be studied and appreciated by those who follow the right hon. Gentleman's pronouncements. However, is it not the case that under all Governments, notably the one of which he was a member—which brought Rolls-Royce into public ownership—Alfred Herbert, British Leyland and Ferranti had to be supported by public enterprise because the market would not invest in basic British industries? Is he aware that every advanced country pours public money into private enterprise, not least Germany, which puts £3 billion a year into its privately owned mining industry? Is it not a fact that the only effect of the right hon. Gentleman's statement will be that there will be a temporary and tapering future for British manufacturing industry, upon which this country's standard of living depends?

Sir K. Joseph: The success of British investment and British participation in North Sea oil gives the lie to the right hon. Gentleman's comments. He constantly confuses subsidies to industry with what he calls the support provided by investment relief for business houses and stock relief that was provided by the Labour Government. We are cutting the subsidies to industry while leaving the investment allowances and stock relief in place.

Mr. du Cann: In order to keep the House informed, will my right hon. Friend now instruct the NEB—as recommended more than once by the Public Accounts Committee and endorsed more than once by the House—to open its books to the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Sir K. Joseph: We intend to proceed with the review of the Comptroller and Auditor General's functions, and the question of access to the NEB's books will be considered against that background.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 2,500 workers at the ICL factory in my constituency, and my constituents who work for Fairey Engineering and Ferranti, will be profoundly dismayed at the prospect that their factories, their jobs at which they owe to rescue by the taxpayer, are to be sold off in order that they can be looted by the private speculators who let them down in the first place? Before proceeding with these damaging forced sales will the right hon. Gentleman come to Manchester and meet the representatives of the workers in the factories to discuss the matter with them?

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman has an odd view about what he describes as the private speculators. Perhaps the Opposition do not realise that the main investors in this country are the pension and insurance funds of the working population. I hope that when this Government have gone further in their proposals for encouraging ownership and enterprise there will be many more private investors. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made a start, but those who work for Ferranti and ICL have a much better chance of expansion, vitality, progress and secure jobs under private enterprise.

Mr. Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend say what rate of return on its capital the NEB is expected to make, in view of its signal failure to meet that rate in recent years? Since he has said that the market is not particularly familiar with high technology, will he recognise that some of us feel that the NEB could be rather more familiar with high technology?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the fact is that the NEB, as a result of the last Administration's work, has in its ownership about a dozen high-technology companies that it cannot sell because they are not sufficiently developed. It is therefore necessary for the NEB to continue to manage these companies until they can be sold wholly or in part. The return on capital is one of


the factors that we shall have to take into account in the necessary legislation.

Dr. McDonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about future plans for Inmos once the £25 million is exhausted? Will he then expect private investment to take over in order to support Inmos? Will he also bear in mind that our competitors in Japan, America, Italy and France pour immense public funds into microtechnology and other areas of high technology, and that if we fail to do so we shall simply be buying it from them in the 1980s?

Sir K. Joseph: To be fair, I think that the NEB will welcome private participation in Inmos. As for microtechnology, it is true that our rivals, either through taxpayers' money direct or through defence or other arrangements, support a number of high-technology projects.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more specific about the NEB and British Leyland? Is he aware that Sir Michael Edwardes has stated that the future of the new medium car is dependent on Government support plus demanning at Cowley and agreed working practices in terms of productivity? If those two agreements are reached, will the support be forthcoming?

Sir K. Joseph: The House can be confident that Sir Michael Edwardes and his colleagues and the NEB will take a realistic view about the viability of British Leyland before making any requests for more taxpayers' money.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller) has exposed some of the uncertainties to which his statement will give rise and to which we shall have no chance of addressing ourselves in the next few weeks? The Secretary of State has been asked about British Leyland. May I ask him about another important company—Rolls-Royce? Do the Government propose to continue to give their support by financing the RB211 and the other activities of Rolls-Royce?

Sir K. Joseph: I have tried to remove uncertainty by saying that the NEB will have a continuing role for those companies which have been in difficulties and

for which it now has a responsibility—that includes Leyland and Rolls-Royce—so long as the business concerned has a prospect of viability and that no solution is based upon the private sector.

Mr. Dykes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proceeding cautiously, on taking time to think about the situation, on making his first proposals, and avoiding over-hasty action. Are there some high-technology areas to which he did not refer in his statement in which the NEB might take some interest in the next few years?

Sir K. Joseph: That is conceivable in the immediate future—but within a limited budget and involving partnership with the private sector.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State state more clearly what he means by " exceptional cases " and " giving temporary and tapering support "? Would he include UCS, Ferranti and Rolls-Royce in that category if they needed that support now?

Sir K. Joseph: My gift of prophecy is strictly limited. I talked about wholly exceptional circumstances and the possibility of very unusual circumstances. I cannot predict what those circumstances may be.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Some hon. Members on both sides of the House consider that there is no more important single decision facing the country than whether we should seek to compete in large-scale integration and microtechnology. When considering the role of the NEB, was my right hon. Friend aware of a conference some weeks ago at the Stamford Research Institute, at which the American leaders, endorsed by the Japanese presence, indicated that the entrance ticket to that technology was at least $1 billion? Does my right hon. Friend think that that sum can be found either in the public sector or in the private sector? Does he set that as a major technical aim for Britain?

Sir K. Joseph: That figure could be misleading. There are a number of investment projects for very large-scale integration technology which may be coming into action in Britain at figures far below that level.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, shorn of all its gobbledegook,


his statement amounts to saying that the taxpayer will take all the risk in high technology so that private interests can cash in on the subsequent profits?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the modesty of the NEB's dowry from the taxpayer for developing its dozen or so high-technology companies which are not ready for sale to the private sector.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that ICL shares—of which the NEB holds 25 per cent.—are valued at over £500 million and that the management and staff welcome the chance to involve themselves in share purchasing? Is he aware that their only fear is that the company may issue the shares in one block to be sold to one of our overseas rivals? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the shares are put on the private market in small portions?

Sir K. Joseph: We shall have to take that into account in the legislation and in our discussions with the NEB about the disposal of shares.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the NEB's investment role in British Leyland, Ferranti, Rolls-Royce and other companies in Scotland to continue? However small the dowry to the NEB in order to make high technology companies profitable, does the Secretary of State agree that that dowry is bestowed upon the NEB by the taxpayer? What ethics are involved when the taxpayer, having bestowed that dowry, is denied the profits from it?

Sir K. Joseph: We did not create the situation. The last Government gave the NEB the right to embark upon these ventures. We believe that those rights were too excessive. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. The NEB has no direct activities in Scotland other than through subsidiaries of national companies in Scotland.

Mr. William Clark: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the £100 million sell-off? Will the legislation cover the possibility of employee participation in the sell-off of shares?

Sir K. Joseph: I imagine that the NEB, which will be responsible for that, will consider that possibility.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement shows a lack of confidence in the NEB? Does he agree that his statement will lead to a loss of jobs and may turn parts of the industrial manufacturing base into an industrial desert? Will he place in the Official Report a list of those companies which are not affected in any way? If he does not do that, there will be a question mark over every aspect of the NEB. Will he provide a list of those entrepreneurs who are heading to the regions to replace the jobs?

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that each region contains its own ration of entrepreneurs. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) was right to suggest that those who work for ICL and Ferranti will not think that their prospects are dismal, even if the NEB decides to sell some of the shares. They have packets of self-confidence.

Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend consider again the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who had some responsibility for industry when he was in Government? Did the right hon. Gentleman not phrase his question to show exactly why it was so difficult for private enterprise to work under the previous Government?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree.

Mr. Wriggiesworth: Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to examine the NEB's proposals for building a titanium plant on Teesside? Does he regard that proposal as being of the utmost national importance to Rolls-Royce and other similar industries? Will he give permission for that project to go ahead?

Sir K. Joseph: It is an urgently needed project, and the possibilities are being considered.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dilemma in relation to Britsh Leyland is that the more it is believed that taxpayers' money will be available, the more difficult it will be to persuade the company and employees at all levels to accept different practices in work?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but the present management has achieved a change of


atmosphere to some extent in some places, and particularly in one or two places.

Mr. Dalyell: I return to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller) about British Leyland. As a person who represents 7,000 people in the truck and tractor division of British Leyland, what should I say the Secretary of State means by " realistic arrangements " and " viability "?

Sir K. Joseph: He should say exactly the same as my predecesor and the Prime Minister said—that the future of Britsh Leyland depends upon the effectiveness of the performance of those who manage and work in that company.

Mr. Marlow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Britsh electorate will be delighted that this antediluvian engine of back-door nationalisation is about to be cut down to size?

Sir K. Joseph: There will be some relief that subsidised competition is to be brought to an end.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four of the hon. Members who have been rising to ask questions. I should tell the House that I have a longer list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in the main debate of the day than I have had since I have been Speaker. They will not all be called in any event.

Mr. James Lamond: How can the Secretary of State assert that the many thousands of Ferranti workers who live in my constituency will welcome the policy that he has announced—he believes that it will lead to expansion and secure jobs for them—when they escaped from private enterprise only by the intervention of the NEB? Since that happened, they have made the company profitable. They have enabled it to expand and to look forward to continued expansion. They have more than quadrupled the value of the shares taken up by the National Enterprise Board when it rescued the company from annihilation.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not wish to set myself up as a judge of that which the NEB has achieved in any particular company. However, I assert that those who

work for a company of the quality of Ferranti need have no fear for the future.

Mr. Ogden: Before the right hon. Gentleman reached the conclusions that he announced today, did he consult at least one Member of this place who has great experience of investment, disinvestment and reinvestment, namely, his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his statement will create alarm and despondency in the Greater Manchester area, especially among my constituents who work for Francis Shaw Ltd. and Ferranti? Will he consider the argument advanced to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and expand on his hesitation and reluctance to identify the companies and firms that will be at risk arising from his statement? Does he appreciate that his reluctance to identify the companies and firms will create the maximum embarrassment and anxiety among their workers?

Sir K. Joseph: There will be worry among workers only if hon. Members such as the right hon. Gentleman try to spread alarm and despondency. I have no reluctance to name firms. I did not give a list to the House of the 10 or 12 technology firms that are being kept by the NEB until they are in a state to be sold, but all the rest are subject to the procedures that I have outlined.

Mr. Leighton: It has been said this afternoon that Britain is in danger of becoming an industrial cemetery. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long it will take under his policies—I use his words—to " revitalise the private sector "?

Sir K. Joseph: The House probably realises that we have been in relative industrial decline for generations. The pace of international competition is accelerating. It cannot be expected that full vitality will return overnight. The treatment of the private sector by the previous Government has made recovery more difficult. However, there should be results from the changed climate before too long.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: I have two brief announcements to make to the House. First, I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 27 July up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 p.m. on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.
As regards the business for next week and the debate on Thursday 26 July on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, hon. Members may hand in to my office by 9 a.m. on Wednesday 25 July their names and the topics that they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the previous occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The debate will cover all the main Estimates originally presented for the current financial year in House of Commons Papers 244, 266 and 280 of the previous Session and the Supplementary and Revised Estimates presented since in House of Commons Papers 125 and 126. It will be in order on Second Reading to raise any topic falling within the compass of those Estimates. I shall issue the result of the ballot later on 25 July.

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give full support to the National Enterprise Board, which is vital to the essential and continuing needs of British industry ".
I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not raising the matter earlier. However, I could hardly have done so without hearing the Secretary of State's statement.
The matter is specific; of that there is no doubt. If it is not debated, made

more clear and amplified, we shall not be able to discuss it for the next three months or so. It will not be possible to discuss it for that period because the House is to go into the Summer Recess.
The effect of that delay will be considerable uncertainty among not only those whose jobs may be at risk or who feel that their jobs are at risk, as some of my hon. Friends said, but among those who may be making decisions to move into the regions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said. Uncertainty will prevail in the market. The question that will hang over it is which of the various industries' assets may be disposed of. We are talking about Ferranti, ICL, Alfred Herbert and the thousands of jobs that are at risk in their disposal.
In view of that, Mr. Speaker, there can be little doubt that we should have a debate, and we should have one before the House adjourns. There could hardly be a more important matter. Indeed, some Conservative Members have said that it is the most important issue that faces the House. That is self-evident in view of the statement itself and the interest that it has aroused.

Mr. Speaker: I listened with care to the exchanges earlier this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give full support to the National Enterprise Board, which is vital to the essential and continuing needs of British industry ".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order. The House has given me instructions to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected any amendment on the Order Paper.
In view of the long list of right hon. and hon. Members who have written in already, apart from those who will rise without having indicated that they wish to speak, I hope that hon. Members will not come to the Chair to seek to advance their cases. It is an impossible task to call every hon. Member. I can only do my best to ensure a fair debate.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Everyone in the House appreciates that the Chair has an enormously difficult job in every debate. Today's debate presents an even more difficult problem. It is on an issue in respect of which the normal custom of the Chair, calling a Member on one side followed by a Member on the other, does not apply. The Chair of necessity does not know whether the potential speakers are for or against. May I suggest that those who wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, should advise the Chair whether they will speak for or against, so that the Chair may, in its usual way, show its impartiality and call one speaker who is for the motion followed by another who is against?

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you said, you may wish to point out, especially to right hon. Gentlemen, that this is an admirable occasion for them to set an example by the brevity of their speeches.

Mr. Speaker: That is a good point of order.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) has been here a long time. I much appreciate his helpful advice. However, I propose to follow the normal custom of calling alternately Members from either side of the House. I should get into terrible difficulty, and so would the House, if I sought to know the views of hon. Members before I called them. As far as possible, I shall do my best to ensure that those in favour and those against get a fair hearing.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you are conducting the

debate, will you pay some attention—I know that you try—to those Members of Parliament who stay to listen to other Members' speeches? Sometimes we notice the phenomenon of Members who float into the Chamber and make speeches but do not wait to hear anyone else's contribution. Could preference be given to those people who listen to the speeches of others?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is serving in his first Parliament. However, he has drawn our attention to what has been a growing discourtesy in the House. If anyone takes part in a debate, it is a matter of courtesy to the House that he listens to what others have to say.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the sentence of capital punishment should again be available to the courts.
In recent years this House has been much concerned with issues of life and death—the abortion of unborn children, the rescue of the boat people condemned to drown in the sea and the ending of the wars in Rhodesia and Nicaragua. However, I doubt whether any of those three great issues has gripped the attention of the people whom we represent so much as has this debate today. The reason is not far to seek.
Britain is still a relatively non-violent country, and long may it remain so. The levels of killings by criminal gunmen and terrorists in recent years have risen to a point where the public, on whose behalf we speak, are coming to the conclusion that our present methods of combating those attacks on our civilised society are not working, or are not working well enough.
I shall mostly avoid statistics. In this matter they convey very little. However, I remind the House of just two. Over the past 10 years more than 2,000 of our fellow citizens have been done to death in Northern Ireland and something close to 20,000 have been severely injured, many of whom would have died if it had not been for the advances of medical science. Meanwhile, here in the mainland the murder rate has increased.
I avoid statistics because we are in a situation where every year the number of


corpses increases but where the numbers of people charged with murder no longer increase. I state just one simple fact. Seldom does a week go by without two, and sometimes three, of our fellow citizens on the mainland being killed in circumstances that 10 years ago would have been regarded as murder. Some of those murders are domestic. No legislation that could he supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends or myself could ever be applied to those cases. Some of those murders are the product of people who are emotionally or mentally deranged. Once again I say that no legislation imposing the death sentence could possibly be applied to those. Indeed, I hope that the House would never agree to the death sentence being applied in any cases where the circumstances were extenuating. My main concern—and, I think, that of the public—is the massive recent increase in the deliberate killings by criminals and terrorists. I seek to deal with those.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for so quickly fulfilling the promise that she gave in the election campaign that this House would have an early opportunity to debate and vote on this difficult matter. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for enabling the debate to take place on a motion that is designed not to expose the details of the legislation that will be required—if the House is minded to accent it—but simply to deal with the principle, which I define at the outset in the form of two basic questions. The first is practical. Can the capital sentence deter, or help to deter, those evil men who, in cold blood, plan and carry out the malicious killing of our fellow citizens? In short, can it offer to the innocent and to those on whom we place the main burden of defending us any greater protection than they receive today? That is the practical question.
The second question is moral. Is our civilised State entitled, under any circumstances, consciously to take the life of any of its citizens? No matter how terrible the crimes a man may already have perpetrated, no matter how grave the threat his existence, even in gaol, may pose to our society, should we none the less take the view that never should our courts have the power to sentence him to the fate that he imposed, without due process of law, on the people we repre-

sent and for whose safety the House is responsible? That is the moral question.
Like all Members of Parliament, I have pondered long and painfully over those questions. If I may speak personally, I hate the whole terrible subject. I have been very close to the administration of the death sentence in California and Colorado. Like all Members of Parliament, I love life in all its forms. I know that the killing of any one man diminishes all other men. I therefore reached my conclusions and answers to the practical and moral questions of the capital sentence not by gut reaction, not by statistics, not even in response to the views of and what I deemed to be the wishes of the majority of the British people, but on experience, conscience and judgment. Therefore, I make it plain at the outset that I am opposed to a referendum.
I recognise the force of public feeling. I see the dangers of Parliament perhaps giving the impression that it is insensitive to popular opinion, which on this matter, unlike most others, has remained pretty clear and consistent over the years. But I cannot support a referendum, because, although it might help my cause, its only practical effect would be to pressure some hon. Members into voting in an opposite sense to what their judgment and their conscience have led them to believe is right, and that would make a mockery of this Parliament.
Perhaps I should make clear, in case of misconceptions outside or even inside the House, that the step that I am asking the House to undertake tonight is a long way from the reintroduction of the death sentence. What we are asking—indeed, all that we can ask—is that the House, by agreeing to the motion, should advise the Government to set in train the preparation of a Bill that would fall to be considered in very much greater detail at a later stage.
Hon. Members who are opposed to capital punishment root and branch will hardly let that stop them from voting against the motion, and from their point of view they will be right. Those who favour the capital sentence will, by the same taken, no doubt support the motion. But to what I conceive, after about 15 years in this House, to be a majority of hon. Members—those who have doubts, those who think that there is something


to be said for the capital sentence but who want first to be assured about how it would work in practice—I feel entitled to make this plea. We cannot decide today the types of murder, terrorist or otherwise, that might be eligible for the death sentence. We cannot decide today the difficult question of majority verdicts, to which I would be opposed. We cannot settle, outside of a detailed Committee stage of legislation in this House, such difficult issues as who would be responsible for recommending the prerogative of mercy, for dealing with the position in Northern Ireland, or, indeed, the method of execution—and I am bound to say that I do not like hanging.
All these are crucial matters, but one thing at least is certain. If the motion is lost tonight, none of the detailed questions that I know trouble many of my hon. Friends will ever be able to be answered, at least in this Parliament, because the Government will have no need even to try to answer them. If, on the other hand, the House accepts the motion, there will be plenty of time for the Government, for it will then become a matter for the Government to undertake consultations with all the interested parties, notably the judiciary, the legal profession, the police, the social services and the civil liberties organisations, for the purpose of drafting a Bill, which we cannot consider today and the contents of which would need to command the widest possible measure of support in the House. We cannot settle those matters today. We can deal today only with the issue of principle.

Mr. Eric Ogden: If the motion is carried tonight, will the Government be able to promise a free vote on any Bill? There is a difference between a private motion and a Bill introduced by the Goverment. Surely they would expect at least a Whip vote of their own Members on this.

Mr. Griffiths: It is, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to answer on that matter, but perhaps I may say this. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the courtesy of writing to me. He said:
 If the motion is carried, one of the matters that will have to be decided is whether effect should be given to that decision by a Govern-

ment Bill or whether it should be, as were successive abolition Bills, a Private Member's Bill.
My right hon. Friend went on to say:
 In the latter case the Government would, of course, provide drafting assistance and parliamentary time.
I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden)—and, indeed, to the House—that I would not even consider accepting a Whip on a matter of this kind. I would vote as a free Member. I am certain that my right hon. Friend and the whole of the Government Front Bench would not even contemplate bringing to the House on this matter a Bill that carried with it a three-line Whip.
The paradox is that there is only one way in which any hon. Member who feels that the death penalty may have some value, for example in dealing with terrorism, but who cannot bring himself to support it in other cases can possibly hope in this Parliament to have those doubts properly considered, and conclusions, either for or against, laid before this House, and that is by voting for the motion tonight.
I come now to the substantial issues which the House must consider. I say at once that there is no proof—certainly no conclusive proof—either that abolition has led to an increase or that restoration could bring about a decrease in the number of murders. In addition, there is no conclusive proof that abolition has not encouraged a substantial increase in killings or that restoration would not have the effect of deterring such killings in the future. The truth is that, on the basis of the statistics, none of us can say for certain that capital punishment would or would not save lives. I suspect that it would. Other hon. Members believe that it would not. But none of us knows for certain. We therefore have no choice but to look elsewhere than in the statistics for the guidance that we need.
In my view, one of the best sources of such guidance is the working experience of those who, more than anyone else, come into the closest contact with murderers and terrorists, and who daily risk their lives in the fight to save innocent people. I refer, of course, to the police service, and in particular to the CID, to the Special Branch, to the regional crime squads and to the anti-terrorist squad.
Their verdict is practically unanimous. The police want this motion to be passed.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Police Federation, not for the chief constables. I make the point because he said that he was speaking for the police service.

Mr. Griffiths: I believe that I am speaking for the police service as a whole.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Who is paying the hon. Member?

Mr. Griffiths: The Police Federation represents—

Mr. Kerr: Who is paying the hon. Member?

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that Labour Members, who rightly support the interests of members of the trade unions of this country, will not think it wrong for me to expose the views of 99·7 per cent. of those who serve in the police service. As to the question of a declaration, the House knows well where I stand. The position of chief police officers, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) knows, is very varied. Some approve, some do not. It is an open question.

Mr. John Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a sponsored member of a trade union, and I understand the position to be that one declares an interest in matters in which one is representing the views of an organisation. Can the hon. Gentleman be requested by the Chair to say whether he has a paid interest in this matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has heard the observations that have been made.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recollect that the present Leader of the Opposition spoke on behalf of a measure which the Police Federation favoured, without declaring that he was paid by it.

Mr. Griffiths: May I make clear once and for all. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I advise the Police Federation, just as many other hon. Members advise other asso-

ciations. If I agree with the Police Federation, I support its case. If I disagree, I tell it, and I do not support its case. My responsibility is to my constituents and to the national interest. [Interruption.] I hope that there will be no more of this barracking in the House. In the interests of allowing many more hon. Members to speak, perhaps I might be allowed to press on. There will then be more opportunity for hon. Members to make their views known.
Speaking for the police, I say simply that their verdict is almost unanimous. They want this motion to be accepted. When the House first decided to abolish the capital sentence, the Police Federation gave a carefully documented warning. It said then that abolition would lead to a rapid increase in the use of guns by criminals. Can anyone doubt that that has happened? Its warning was based on experience—on the hard personal experience of those who knew that in the days of the capital sentence the older members of many criminal gangs in London would regularly frisk the younger men to make sure that they were not carrying guns. The older gang members did this because, in the criminal vernacular of the times:
 You kill a cop, and we are all topped ".
It is not like that any more. Today, as the police warned, it has become the norm, not the exception, for the professional criminal to go out on the job with a gun, and he uses that gun for three reasons—first, to menace, and that menace has grown stronger now that those who are threatened with a gun know that the cost to a criminal of killing them is no longer the capital sentence; secondly, to eliminate witnesses and, thirdly, to assist in the getaway.
All those are among the reasons why the numbers or armed crimes have increased. I give just one example. In 1963, the year before the House passed the abolition legislation, firearms were used in 43 robberies in London—rather less than one every week. This year the total will be well over 1,000—an increase of 21 times. No less important is the far greater increase in the number of armed criminals who get clean away with their crimes. I shall tell the House why that is happening. Ten years ago unarmed policemen seldom hesitated to tackle armed robbers. They did so in the


belief that very few cornered criminals would shoot to kill a police officer on duty. They would not do so because those criminals knew, or at least had reason to fear, that to murder a police officer on duty was virtually to sign one's own death warrant.
But no longer is that so. Today—I state it as a fact—very few policemen are willing to take the risk of tackling a cornered gunman unless they themselves are armed. The new situation is that in that split second of timing when the policeman must decide whether to tackle the armed man, and the criminal to decide whether to pull the trigger, the loss of the capital sentence has changed the odds in favour of the gunman and heavily against the police.
The crucial factor is that at the point at which he decides whether or not to tackle the gunman, perhaps one who has already killed, the police officer today risks his life. But the criminal does not risk his life. When he comes to decide whether to shoot or not to shoot, his only risk is between a life sentence for using firearms in the course of a robbery or a life sentence for killing in the process. The practical difference, depending on his record and previous convictions, may be something like four or five years in prison for carrying the firearm in the commission of a theft, and about 10 to 12 years, with remission, for killing a police officer. It may be more, or less, but often it comes out at that. That differential is no longer enough to persuade the average police officer to run risks with his own life.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the overwhelming majority of murders are not committed in those circumstances.

Mr. Griffiths: Of course I know that. That was why I conceded right at the beginning that domestic murders cannot be included. The anxiety relates to where the increase is occurring, and it is in this area. It is precisely for the reason that I have given that the police themselves have been forced to take to guns. They did not want that, and they warned the House against it, but that is what has happened.
At the time of the Silverman Bill the only policemen who ever carried arms in

this country were those who were bodyguards to the Royal Family and, perhaps, to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. At that time police armouries were a joke. They consisted of a few old Lee-Enfields, sourvenirs of the First World War. But today thousands of policemen are thoroughly trained and skilled marksmen. More and more they are carrying and using firearms to handle incidents that are created by armed thugs and terrorists.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: I am anxious not to detain the House for too long, but I shall give way.

Mr. Soley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if one excludes terrorist offences the number of police officers killed has varied between nil and two since 1957, with the exception of 1966, when three were killed, and that only one prison officer has been killed?

Mr. Griffiths: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman excludes terrorism, because 140 police officers have been killed in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] Are they any the less police officers?
As the police have become armed, more deaths have inevitably occurred. Within the past year three people have been shot dead by the English police, and the result has been public unease. The question that is asked is " If the police must shoot, can they not shoot to disable the criminal and not to kill him? " The police answer is always " No ", for the excellent reason that a wounded armed man is dangerous so long as he can fire his weapon.
However, there is no escaping one fact. We did not succeed in abolishing the death penalty in this country. Executions have continued by armed robbers and terrorists, to whom I shall turn in a moment, and the danger is that more and more of our police find themselves acting as the surrogate executioners of armed criminals without due process of law. Despite the fact that Parliament has decreed that even after trial the State may not take life, our police are in a position where they are performing executions. That is something that they


detest. It is something from which, if we can, we must seek to save them.
The police may be wrong in their settled and consistent belief that the capital sentence would help to save innocent lives, including the lives of the police, but I hope—indeed, I beg—that no hon. Member will lightly brush aside the views of the best and most experienced police force in the world, whatever his conscience may tell him. Which hon. Member can say with enough certainty to take the responsibility possibly of sending more of our police to their deaths that in this matter he is wiser and more experienced than they are? Can we, each one of us, say with enough moral authority to be willing to risk the lives of more innocent people that not one professional robber or drug runner who sets out to commit a crime would never be deterred, by the fear of capital punishment, from taking a firearm with him and killing an innocent person?

Mr. Stanley Newens: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the majority of the police may take the view that he is expressing here but that many policemen in responsible positions do not agree with it? Their views should be weighed just as heavily by the House.

Mr. Griffiths: I am aware of that, and I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking for the bosses' union.
Turning to the terrorist problem, 14 years ago these islands were untouched by the scourge of urban terrorism. In the past 10 years, however, more than 2,000 of our fellow citizens have been killed by terrorists. Here on the mainland we have had the bombing of the Army coach, the slaughter of young people in the pubs of Birmingham and Guildford, the assassination of Ross McWhirter and my colleague Airey Neave, explosions at the homes of prominent statesmen and others, letter bombs and incendiary devices, and the shooting up of restaurants that led to the Balcombe Street siege and the murder of the Tube driver who helped to foil a bomb plot. Nor has London been immune from international terrorism. There have been hijackings, the attack on the El-Al bus, murders of foreign politicians and killings involving rival factions in the Arab maelstrom. Not once has the perpetrator of any of these countless killings faced the

risk of losing his life by judicial execution. At worst, he faces a long prison sentence.
In no way do I underestimate the horrors of a long prison sentence. However, a man may wait in prison for eventual release. That can come in a number of ways—by the seizing of hostages, by some future political amnesty or by parole when memories and the sense of outrage have faded. Meanwhile, his status as a hero among like-minded people is assured—and no doubt in many cases such a terrorist may prefer to be a hero than a martyr.
I do not for one moment underestimate the difficulties of defining terrorism. What, for example, does one do if someone kills an East German border guard? He is a terrorist in East Berlin but a hero in West Berlin. There are the gravest difficulties in defining terrorism. Nor do I underestimate the terrible problem of deciding what to do about the 14-year-old boy. If he is liable to the death penalty, why should not terrorists make use of the 12-year-old boy? Of course I do not underestimate the difficulties.
Nor do I believe—and I state it plainly —that the death sentence could possibly deter the ideological fanatic. It would not. As often as not such a killer kills for a cause that, however revolting it may be to us, to him or her is a mission where the end justifies the means. There is, too, the problem of martyrdom, to which the right hon. Gentleman the former Home Secretary and no doubt my right hon. Friend will wish to draw the attention of the House. I believe, however, that if the IRA wishes to find martyrs it can already do so. There will not be some sudden accession of martyrs in Northern Ireland if the House passes the motion tonight. However, I in no way underestimate these problems.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Is there not a further risk, and one involving innocent lives? That is the risk from ideologically motivated killers that hostages will be taken and that their lives will be at risk if the capital sentence can be invoked.

Mr. Griffiths: Indeed there is, but there is nothing to prevent hostages from being taken to revenge the IRA for the killing of young men by the British Army or the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the current


street fighting. There will be no sudden accession of new powers and new abilities in the IRA if the House passes the motion tonight. The IRA is at war with us, and the situation would be no worse or better.
Not all terrorists are fanatics. We need to distinguish carefully between at least three types of terrorists that the police in many countries, not only this, have been able to identify in recent years. One group is the fanatics, and they would never be deterred. A second group is those who are motivated by a ragbag of emotions and ideals—braggadocio, worship of a fanatic leader, personal exhibitionism or self-drama. These are the weaker characters who frequently plant terrorist bombs but who, the police advise me, although not always, can sometimes be put off, even at the last moment, by the fear of execution.
It is the third type with whom I am mainly concerned, and that is the hired professional assassin. These men are the jackals. They are the men who hire themselves out from one terrorist group and criminal gang to another. Above all, they are calculators. They calculate the odds. The calculation that weighs most with them is that they themselves shall live to enjoy, if that is the word, the fruits of their terrible labour. The police tell me that where such a calculating professional hired assassin has to take into account the possibility that he too may die, his price goes up and his availability goes down. The cash nexus starts to work and terrorist organisations find that the death penalty substantially increases the cost of hiring those assassins. It is a cold-blooded calculation, but, in the eyes of the police and security men with whom I have discussed it, anything that makes it harder and more expensive for terrorist organisations to hire professionals is a gain to their potential victims.
Only last week the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House in guarded terms that there is evidence that terrorism in that part of our country is benefiting from assistance from outside groups. I suspect that behind his careful words is evidence known to the police that more and more hired professional hit men are being trained and hired out from one terrorist group to another. It is these

men to whom the existence of the death sentence can act as a disincentive. When we come to vote tonight, I hope that we shall not ignore that fact.
What we shall not be deciding tonight is to reintroduce the death sentence. We shall not be deciding on the scope or structure of a Bill to reintroduce the capital sentence in this country. That would be for the Second Reading of any Bill that would need to be drafted, and it would need to be based on the widest consultation in order to reach the widest possible agreement. There can be no decision on that matter here tonight.
We shall not be deciding any of the details tonight. I offer as my opinion, based on previous experience with legislation, that the best way to proceed must not be by the 1955 route. It must be the route whereby the House agrees to a general proposition—in this case that the capital sentence should be available—and then proceeds, clause by clause, to exclude from its ambit a whole series of particular classes. For example, I believe that murder committed in domestic circumstances and murders committed by juveniles and mentally and emotionally enraged people should be excluded. But these are matters for legislation which cannot be decided tonight.
What we are deciding tonight is the issue of principle. Does the House believe that the capital sentence has no part to play, in any circumstances, in deterring violence and protecting innocent lives? Those who believe that must vote against the motion. Those who believe the opposite must vote for it. There is a larger number of hon. Members on both sides who believe that just possibly the capital sentence may have some role to play but who first need an assurance about how it will work in practice. The right and honourable course for them to follow is to vote for the motion. That will act as an instruction to the Government to undertake the consultations and to bring back to the House, where every hon. Member may vote as he pleases, a Bill that will set out a possible way of proceeding with the capital sentence.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just calculated that if every right hon. and


hon. Member who wishes to speak confines himself to five minutes, we shall still not be able to accommodate everyone.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I have listened with great interest to the case of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). He made three important points. First, he said that tonight's vote would only be a step, albeit a major one, towards the introduction of the death penalty. Obviously there would be a long way to go, and a Bill would be necessary. He sought the assistance of the Government in the consultations on and drafting of the Bill. I hope very much that we shall have an assurance tonight that if this motion is regrettably and unhappily passed, apart from drafting and consultations there will be no suggestion of any Government help on a subject which has been a matter for a free vote and private Members' legislation for many years.
The hon. Member should have made it even clearer that any such Bill would have a very long way to go in this House. I cannot conceive of such a Bill passing in this House without a guillotine. I hope that the Government will assure us that there will he no question of terminating discussions in this House on a Bill about which there are so many deeply and widely held views. In those circumstances, I cannot see it passing through the House.
The hon. Member's second point was that there was no proof that abolition had or had not led to an increase in the number of murders. In saying that, he eroded the whole of his case. On the basis of statistics, he admitted that none of us could say that capital punishment could save lives. He said that he believed it could, but none of us knows that for sure. I believe that that admission eclipses almost totally his whole argument, because he is asking us to step into the unknown when none of us knows whether this would lead to any decrease in the number of murders. Therefore, what is left of the debate?

Mr. Leo Abse: As the argument has been presented on the basis of whether or not capital punishment would diminish the number of murders, it is important that we should ask ourselves whether bringing in State strangulation for terrorism would inevitably mean

an increase in the number of murders. That is an issue that has not been dealt with by the sponsor of the motion.

Mr. Morris: I shall turn to the question of terrorism later in my speech. I am sure that those who have been concerned with administration in Northern Ireland will want to put their views on this matter to the House.
The third point that the hon. Member made was in seeking once again to repeat the history of the past by trying to categorise murder into domestic and non-domestic classes. We all know that in the past attempts at any degree of categorisation failed.
Whenever the death penalty is mentioned many, if not most, of us react instinctively. Our response—and there is no need to apologise for this—is the result of a gut feeling rather than logic. There are deeply held, conscientious views both for and against on this issue. In some cases it is because of a conviction against the taking of all human life. I suspect that that is a minority view. An even narrower view is that judicial murders are wrong. But many of us—perhaps most—are revolted by the techniques of those executions. On the other hand, I can see that there are deeply held views also and we have heard the hon. Member put his case this afternoon. He claims —and I dispute this—that society has a right to protect itself to the extent of being able to demand the forfeiture of human life, in that a Person has so conducted himself that he is denied the right to live. Perhaps that was the most significant aspect of the remarks made by the hon. Member. His major point, to which I return, was that all the statistics, arguments and logic tend to contradict one another and that there is no clear proof one way or the other.
That brings me to my second point, that we are not arguing about the abolition of hanging for murder. That has been abolished by this House. That is not the issue. The issue that we are deciding tonight is whether hanging should be restored. Therefore, the onus of proof is on those who seek to restore hanging and not on those who wish to abolish it. This is where the hon. Member, in the absence of statistics, was not able to satisfy us that he was right in his arguments.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does the right hon. and learned Member agree that we are not debating the reintroduction of hanging? We are discussing the reintroduction of capital punishment. As the Royal Commission on capital punishment recognised in the 1950s, there are many ways in which capital punishment can be carried out.

Mr. Morris: That may well be so. I shall return to the views of the Royal Commission and the leading article in The Guardian in a moment.
We all know that we are talking about capital punishment and its restoration, not its abolition. That is why it is incumbent upon the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to satisfy the House. If we were not arguing about restoration, I should be prepared to deal with the argument for abolition in itself, because I find the whole doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth hardly suitable for a developed, civilised society. Retribution is hardly an appropriate factor in the criminal calendar and in criminal punishment, whether it be for murder or any other offence. I thought that the State had advanced from that kind of philosophy.
The argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman involves the right of the State to demand the supreme penalty, solemnly pronounced and executed as humanely as possible, for murder. We all know that, unhappily, our legal system is not infallible. Innocent men have been hanged, and there can never be a guarantee that only the guilty will hang.

Mrs. Jill Knight: rose—

Mr. Morris: With respect to the hon. Lady, I have already given way twice and there are many other hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate. I wish to conclude my remarks as rapidly as possible.
A Royal pardon is wholly academic when a mistake of that kind is made. I do not believe that the State has a right to demand this penalty for one of its own citizens for murder in peacetime. It is for the State to prove its right to do so and not for the individual to establish his right to live.
On the issue of the restoration of the death penalty, I suspect that many of its

proponents avidly believe that we should walk hand in hand with our colleagues in Europe. Indeed, some would follow every harmonisation within the EEC to the end of the road. But if we restore the death penalty we shall be out of line, in a legal or de facto sense, with every EEC country, except France and Ireland. I am told that there has been one execution in France since 1976 and that the last execution that took place in Ireland was in 1954.
We take pride in the way in which our legal system, with all its faults, has developed over the years. We have exported our common law and our system of justice over the centuries. There has been respect for the need to protect individuals, and that principle, too, has been exported to many corners of the world. Given what has happened in the rest of the world and also the position in Europe, I must ask what makes us so confident that we should act in a contrary sense to our closest colleagues and partners in the world? Why should we seek to put the clock back? Why should we be right and they be wrong?
I return to the issue of deterrents and statistics. As the hon. Gentleman said in introducing the motion, these factors do not prove very much. Does the fear of the rope make a potential murderer so rationalise his position that he will change his mind? Many murderers are not rational beings. Usually, about a third of all murder suspects commit suicide or are subsequently found to be mentally ill. On average, over half the number of convicted murderers committed their crimes while in a state of anger, extreme jealousy, quarrelling, fighting or drunk. That leaves us with only the cold-blooded, calculating murderer who, potentially, could be deterred, and there is no evidence on that account.
The hon. Gentleman dealt with the issue of terrorism. I shall not go in detail into the matter of escalation of terrorism, hostages, and the problems involved by trials in Northern Ireland because I am sure that many other hon. Members will deal with those topics. When one tries to categorise murder, one should never forget the experience in 1957, when the use of the gun was regarded as capital murder, whereas the use of the knife was not. Surely no credible advocate of restoration would


now wish to restore any such absurd distinction, whether in regard to the method of murder, the motivation or geographical considerations. This is exactly what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was seeking to do today by putting forward that issue in that way. Because of the deep concern about terrorism in one part of the kingdom, he sought to raise emotions.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As a point of correction, may I inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my proposition was that it would be best to proceed, as often happens in this House, by enacting a general proposition, namely, that the death sentence should apply and then, clause by clause, we could except various categories. That is quite different from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's version.

Mr. Morris: I do not wish to go over the ground again because I do not wish to weary the House. However, that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman sought to do, both at the beginning and at the conclusion of his speech. He tried to set up categories. We have had categories in the past, and they just do not work.
Murder is overwhelmingly a domestic crime. More than half the persons indicted for murder each year have a familiar relationship with the victim, and up to two-thirds have had a personal relationship of some intensity. Only about a quarter of the victims have been total strangers to their killers. These proportions have hardly varied in a period of 20 years. That was the evidence of Mr. Blom-Cooper and Professor Morris, who carried out extensive researches. Therefore, we can dismiss that category immediately because it has no deterrent influence.
What of the minority of cases which the hon. Gentleman, despite his protestations, seeks to categorise? As manna from heaven, we have had the statistics produced by Professor Ehrlich in the United States. Those figures were seized upon by retentionists, and they were embraced by the hon. Gentleman. However, today he sought to wash his hands of them. He said in the Daily Express, embracing the views of the professor:
 An additional execution per year over the period in question could have resulted in seven or eight fewer murders.

However, the professor did not claim anything conclusive in his findings. His views have been torn apart by other studies and academics, both in regard to his statistical methods and the time scale used. It has been said that if another time scale is chosen a different result will emerge.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said in an intervention that we were not dealing specifically with hanging. Hon. Members quake at the sheer barbarity of such a practice. The Guardian reminded us yesterday of the views of the Royal Commission, whose members had examined the electric chair, the gas chamber and injections. They found that hanging was the least objectionable of all the methods that had been examined and canvassed. It is no good hon. Members who wish to vote for the motion washing their hands of the Commission's view that hanging is the least barbaric method of execution.
Those who support the motion are not the only people who are concerned. I and many others are concerned about the increasing level of violence, mugging and armed robberies, right down to crimes of vandalism. The figures have increased alarmingly, and the police should be given every support to deal with those offences. But I cannot conclude, and there is no evidence for doing so, that the death penalty would in any way affect or diminish the amount of mugging, robbery or vandalism.
The statistics show that murder in the course of other serious crimes remains a constant and fractional element of the homicide scene, irrespective of the penalty prescribed for the crime at any one time. I do not believe that the restoration of the death penalty will help us in any way to maintain the standards of a civilised society. I believe firmly that it is an uncivilised and brutal form of judicial retribution which detracts from our hopes of advancing into a more civilised society. It has been rejected by so many countries right across the world, particularly in Europe. It is rejected by so many of us as individuals. The House of Commons continues to give a lead to our people. If we are ahead of public opinion on the issue, so be it. It is a matter of time.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that many of the matters about which we are talking are repugnant to us. However, what I believe should be most repugnant to the House is the suffering from brutal violence.
I propose to speak briefly on the question of terrorism or political violence. In the general spectrum of violence, it is a particularly bloodstained and brutal form. Reference has been made to books on the subject that were written some time ago. There is no question but that the levels of political violence around the world are rising. We have only to look at Northern Ireland, where the most tragic problem exists. Home Secretaries often make foolish remarks. I can remember none more foolish than that of Mr. Roy Jenkins when he was Home Secretary. On 11 December 1974 he declared that the situation was improving. If he were to compare Ulster with Europe in terms of terrorism and violence, he would discover that the European population over the last 10 years has suffered 250,000 deaths and 2 million injuries from terrorist activity.
Terrorism is a growing problem. The past history of terrorism was frequently a matter of justifiable regicide or tyrannicide. Nowadays, there are new movements inside the State that wish to subvert altogether the order of civilised society. We should pay particular attention to our efforts against those groups. One of the problems is that politicians and commentators have failed to draw the distinction between the killing of innocent, powerless and uninvolved individuals and the political overtones attached thereto. One of the greatest errors committed by the House was to declare that the Irish terrorists were political prisoners. That has done untold damage.
The men from the BBC say that we have to show up these terrorists as though they were not murderers in order to achieve a balance of political wisdom in the country. One can imagine the present governor of the BBC allowing Dr. Goebbels 10 minutes air time every two years during the Second World War. Such is the confusion that flows from those who try to lead the country. What

is clear is that the murderer or the terrorist should be destroyed.
I shall be brutal and frank. The threat of the terrorist is to society. The modern terrorist realises full well that the basis of society is that society must have the monopoly of public violence. That is what the State is about. Take away from the State the power of life or death and hand it to individual terrorists, let them seize the power to imprison—as they did in Italy—let them seize the power to kill —as they have done in Northern Ireland—and the power to subvert, and the civilised State, or any State, is endangered. When that happens, the rule of law is endangered. Policemen throughout the world do not shoot to wound; they shoot to kill. They take the law into their hands. That is what will continue to happen unless the House alerts itself to the threatened danger.
Let us not pretend that terrorism is a limited attack on the State or that it is an attack by fringe political groups only. In Europe we have seen some of the more dangerous political parties become involved in terrorism. We should not pretend that we are about to enter a glorious period of rising expectations for the mass of our people. We should face the fact that we may be entering a period that will be almost as harsh as the 1930s.
We should remember that it is not impossible that the Communist Party, which, hitherto, has always been opposed to terrorism outside its own country—regarding it as bourgeois, adventurist and dangerous—may lend its support to the terrorist. The wretched German Communist Party was let down and destroyed by the Nazis in the 1930s, because Moscow would not raise a finger to help it, but we should remember that terrorism could well become an instrument not of political but of military policy.
Because of the general animadversions which I have endeavoured to make on the state of the world, particularly because of the terrible troubles in Northern Ireland, where the liberal progressive approach has failed in the most disastrous fashion, I believe that the House should turn itself seriously towards supporting the motion.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Bury St.


Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) for the lucid and candid way in which he introduced this debate. I found his arguments clear and easy to follow. It is a very difficult subject to bring forward to the House without being wholly emotional about it.
I believe, too, that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was right to say that the burden of proof in this matter rested on those supporting the motion. However, I believe it for slightly different reasons from those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman advanced.
The first is that the concept of judicial murder is objectionable. The second is that, in my view, the State should not render evil for evil but, rather, that a civilised democracy should bring the collective power of the State to show that it is superior to the mindlessness of terrorism and murder. The third is that mistakes cannot be reversed, as we saw in the case of Timothy John Evans and, more recently, of Paddy Meehan, who would have been hanged but was able to be freed from a prison sentence.
Despite these basic objections to capital punishment, however, I and many other hon. Members who share those objections also feel that we have a duty as Members of Parliament to set aside our own views, convictions and, perhaps, prejudices if we feel that by setting them aside we are assisting the protection of the society that we are sent here to protect. That is why the burden of proof rests on the other side.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds gave his case away, but rightly gave it away, when he admitted that he had no statistics to call in aid, because the experience of this country and others does not lead us to conclude that we can offer from this House any substantial protection to our society simply by bringing back capital punishment.
The hon. Member also accepted—this is very important, because it is a view that public opinion, which supports capital punishment, probably does not accept—the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon that many murders take place for which capital punishment could not possibly be the answer. Of course, public opinion is greatly excited by cases such as the present case of the Yorkshire Ripper, which

would come under the category that the right hon. and learned Member advanced as probably not being appropriate for capital punishment. I say " probably " because we do not know the full facts of that case.
That is probably one of the reasons why there is this big difference between the emotional reaction of public opinion and the studied reaction of Members of Parliament in the successive votes that we have taken on the question in this House.
Nevertheless, the basic argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, which we have just heard supported by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), is that there are some murders for which we ought to allow the courts to impose the sentence of capital punishment.
I, too, have been concerned, even though an abolitionist and one who voted for abolition very soon after becoming a Member of this House, about the development of terrorism. But this is an international phenomenon. It is not peculiar to this country, and I find it difficult to believe that it would be right for us in Britain to take the backward step of attempting to combat international terrorism by the use of capital punishment.
Moreover, terrorism thrives on its fanatics. Even though people other than fanatics may be used by terrorists, terrorism is fanatical, and I do not believe that fanatics will be put off by the fear of capital punishment. The scope for martyrdom, for reprisals, for the taking of hostages and for kidnappings is substantial. What is more, in Ireland many terrorists have run the risk of being blown up—some have been blown up—by their own bombs. People who are prepared to take that risk are not likely to be deterred by the more remote risk of capital punishment.
There is the further argument that if we assume that capital punishment is to apply only to those over 18, there is every incentive to make use of younger people for acts of terrorism. That is one of the tragedies of Northern Ireland. Younger people are already being recruited into terrorism. Would not that be a greater incentive?
Then there are others, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds pointed


out—I find this aspect the most difficult to answer—who feel that capital punishment would be a deterrent in a small minority of cases where hardened criminals carry guns and are prepared to shoot their way out of tight corners.
That is probably the most difficult argument to answer. The only answer that I can give is that the minute we start down that road we are on a road that this House rejected after the experience between 1957 and 1965, when we had the Homicide Act, with different categories of murder.
Do we impose the death sentence if a policeman is shot? If the answer is " Yes ", do we impose the death sentence if a policeman is shot when he is not in uniform? Do we impose the sentence if a policeman is shot when he is off duty? Do we impose the sentence of capital punishment if the shooting involves an employee of one of the many private security firms guarding public buildings, banks and other properties?
We get into the most appalling difficulties, which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was fair enough to admit he was not able to tackle in this debate. We reopen the anomalies of the Craig and Bentley case. We reawaken public opinion against the hanging of Ruth Ellis because she was a woman.
I do not believe that it is possible to categorise murder in any way between capital and non-capital, and I do not think that it would be right for this House to take refuge, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the editorial in The Daily Telegraph this morning invited us to do, in the very vagueness of the motion by saying that those in doubt can keep more options open by voting for it than by voting against it. That cannot be an acceptable proposition.
I have two additional arguments against the motion. The first is that I regret to say—this is a strong motivation for Members of Parliament when we read the contents of our mailbags—that voting for this motion is a substitute for real action against crime. To put it crudely, bringing back hanging would not put a strain on the public expenditure programme of this or any other Government. In a sense, it is the soft option for the House.
We all know that the real deterrent to crime of all kinds is to increase the certainty of being caught. That must mean making our police force more effective than it has been. It must mean trying to get away from the tendency to cut expenditure by centralising police forces and, instead, getting the police back into the community. That is more expensive. We cannot escape that fact. We know that it must mean spending more on our miserable prison service. It means relieving prison officers of the duties of trying to look after both those who should be not in prison but in more appropriate institutions and hardened criminals in overcrowded and impossible buildings.
These are difficult decisions for any House of Commons to take. They involve detailed consideration and considerable expenditure. Capital punishment is the easy way out, because if we reintroduced it we could tell our constituents that we were doing something to combat the rising tide of crime. I do not think that that is an option that we ought to take.
My final argument is that the difference between the Member of Parliament taking this decision and the member of the public answering an opinion poll that is to be published in a newspaper is that we in this House have to carry the responsibility for the decision. In my view, the case has not been made out for the return of capital punishment as a means to protect our society. If it has not been made out, we who have the power to decide have to ask ourselves whether we should be prepared personally to carry out the process of execution. I can only answer that question for myself. I should not be. Therefore, I am not prepared to cast my vote to instruct others to carry it out.

5.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I hope that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) will forgive me if I do not immediately take up his arguments. I feel that I have a special role to perform in this debate. It is to put before the House some of the issues as I see them as Home Secretary. I cannot conceivably—and it would be absurd to pretend that I could —divorce myself as Home Secretary completely from myself as a person and my own personal views. I cannot do that. But I shall make the best effort that I can


to put some of the implications before the House on that basis.
The House will need no words from me to underline the significance of public opinion on this issue. It lies behind the undertaking given by the present Government in our election manifesto to enable this debate to take place. There is no gainsaying the strongly held views of many people in the country that capital punishment should be reintroduced for at least certain forms of murder. The proportion favouring it probably would vary from one category of murder to another and in the light of particular events.
As Home Secretary, I appreciate my responsibility for certain groups of public servants who are especially concerned about or affected by our decision on capital punishment and my duty to remind the House of the views of those of their representative bodies which have communicated them to me. Last month, wide publicity was given to a letter sent to me setting out the views of the Police Federation, the body which represents ranks in the police service below the rank of superintendent. The Police Federation presses for the reintroduction of capital punishment. It is especially concerned about terrorist killings, which it considers have introduced a new dimension into the debate and one which points to the need for the capital penalty. The police are, in a real sense, in the front line in relation to terrorism and, indeed, all forms of violent crime. The House must give due weight to their views.
It would not be right, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) recognised this, to leave the House with the impression that the police service is unanimous in wishing to see capital punishment reintroduced. I understand that opinions among more senior police officers are divided, and I am sure that the House would not wish to underrate the views of experienced police officers.
I am also conscious of my responsibilities towards prison staff. The Prison Officers' Association has, in the past, expressed anxiety about the position of its members watching over an increasing number of violent prisoners serving life sentences who, it is said, rightly or wrongly, have nothing to lose as a consequence of further violence. Public

opinion and the attitude and anxieties of particular groups at risk must be given due weight as we consider the various issues that make up the capital punishment question.
The role of the Government in the debate is a limited one. However, the Home Secretary of the day has a function to perform in presenting to the House the implications of what is described as a decision in principle to reintroduce capital punishment. He must also, I think, put frankly, fairly and squarely to the House some of the plain questions that have to be answered, to their own satisfaction, by those who decide to vote for the motion. I do not believe that one can escape from looking at the details when deciding on such a motion. One has to consider some of the detailed implications and to be satisfied in answering to oneself before voting for the motion.
In embarking on that task, I realise that to two groups of opinion the debate has little, if any, persuasive power. The first group consists of those who believe that the death penalty for the unlawful and deliberate taking of life is inherently right as an expression of society's revulsion at such crimes or that it is manifestly justified by the unique deterrent effect of the death penalty, directly as regards murder and indirectly as regards other crime.
The second group consists of those who believe, from deeply held religious or moral conviction, that the judicial taking of human life by the agencies of the State is, in all circumstances, wrong. Nothing said in today's debate is likely to sway those who are deeply committed to either of those points of view.
But that leaves a number, probably a substantial number, of hon. Members who are capable of being persuaded either way by the balance—perhaps the shifting balance—of argument. To that group I particularly address my remarks, and I am qualified to make them at least by virtue of belonging to it myself.
It is often suggested to those whose minds are open to persuasion either way that the question whether capital punishment has a unique deterrent effect can be settled, or at least illuminated, by a study of the available research and statistical information. I must say to the House, as others have said, that this is a confidence which I do not share. It


appears to me that, while the statistics can be, and indeed are, called in aid—too often, selectively—to support either side of the argument, the only sensible conclusion to reach is that their evidence is inconclusive. It is right that I should make that point.
It is a fact that in England and Wales there are more victims of homicide and more convictions for murder in the 1970s than there were in earlier periods when capital punishment was a penalty either for all murder or for some murder. But the average rate of increase in offences of homicide has been less than the average rate of increase in other crimes of serious violence.
What cannot be established from the figures is that there is a causal connection between the increase in the homicide figures and the abolition of capital punishment—or that there is no such connection. That has been the finding of many studies. I do not think that I can do better than offer hon. Members a quotation from the recent report of the important panel of the American National Academy of Sciences which reviewed research on the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. That panel considered that
 research on the deterrent effects of capital sanctions is not likely to provide results that will or should have much influence on policy makers 
Nor do I propose to say much about the situation in other countries. It is, I think, well known that of our Western European partners, all are abolitionist, either by law or in practice, with the exception of France, where the issue continues to be debated. Thus, other European countries where terrorism is at least as much a preoccupation as it is in Great Britain appear to be settled in an abolitionist policy.
The situation in the United States is, of course, a different one, varying from state to state and complicated by decisions of the Supreme Court, with, if anything, a trend towards the retention of capital punishment.
My conclusion, therefore, is that statistical evidence, and evidence of overseas practice, is of limited value in helping the undecided to come to a conclusion on this question.
I turn to the very practical question of what crimes should be made capital. The object of today's debate is a decision in broad principle, but in approaching it we need to look beyond to the specific legislative provision that would flow from a decision in principle to restore capital punishment. Any legislation-making provision for capital punishment would need to define, with the utmost precision, the class of case in which it was to be the penalty, and whether it was to be the only penalty or simply the maximum penalty available to the judge. The motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds is in wholly general terms:
 that the sentence of capital punishment should again be available to the courts ".
I doubt whether a proposition that the death penalty should be available for lesser crimes than murder would command much support.
But how much support would there be for a return to the position that obtained up to 1957, when capital punishment was the penalty for all murder, including the large proportion of murders that are committed under domestic stress or otherwise in circumstances far removed from the callous, premeditated killing carried out by the terrorist or professional criminal?
It was concern about capital punishment on such a wide extent, with many sentences respited through the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, which led to the debate in the late 1940s, to the establishment of a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers which reported in 1953, to the renewed debates in the mid-1950s, and eventually to the short-lived Homicide Act of 1957.
The Homicide Act represents another possible basis for capital punishment, but not, as experience proved, a satisfactory one. The Gowers Commission had examined the possibility of establishing capital and non-capital degrees or categories of murder, and had concluded that there was no satisfactory way of drawing such a distinction. The Homicide Act nevertheless attempted it, as a compromise between seemingly irreconcilable views in Parliament and the country on the capital punishment issue—and on that basis I supported it.
In its eight years of life the Act was found not to distinguish satisfactorily the more heinous from the less heinous murder, or the professional killer from others. Killings of equal callousness were capital or non-capital according to whether the murder weapon was or was not a gun. Premeditated murder by poisoning was not capital. The concept of murder
 in the course or furtherance of theft 
presented the courts with difficult problems of interpretation and gave rise to anomalous and controversial decisions.
It may, of course, be said that a fresh attempt would be more successful in defining a category of capital murder. But can we be confident that it would be possible to solve problems which eluded solution in the Homicide Act, and to which the Gowers Commission, after an exhaustive study, had found there was no satisfactory solution?
One of the categories of murder that remained capital under the Homicide Act 1957 was the murder of a police or prison officer
 acting in the execution of his duty ".
It is often suggested that, whatever the difficulties of reintroducing the death penalty for the other Homicide Act categories, this one at least is clear-cut, and, naturally, in the circumstances, it has a considerable appeal on the surface to many people. But I do not think that it is so simple.
If we reintroduced the capital penalty for that category, we should also reintroduce the risk of anomalies, as the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles made extremely clear, and also, as I think he said, the problem of distinguishing between the police officer and the bank guard or night watchman murdered in similar circumstances.
Another possibility of which a good deal has been heard, and much more will be heard, is that capital punishment should be limited to what is described as terrorist murder. Several amendments on the Order Paper speak of making terrorist murder alone a capital offence.
The first point that I make is that defining terrorist acts with the precision that capital punishment legislation demands presents enormous problems. There is a definition of terrorism in section 14 of the

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976:
 Terrorism means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear ".
The object of that definition is to provide a basis for special powers principally of arrest, detention and exclusion, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and I know particularly well. I must express grave doubt whether it would be an adequate formula to distinguish a capital from a non-capital crime. Surely, it would give rise to long arguments during a trial about the presence or absence of a political motive.
I recognise the counter-argument that, if a broad definition of terrorist murder were adopted. anomalies could be smoothed out either by the courts or by the Home Secretary in recommending the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. However, I am convinced that any law singling out terrorist murder for the capital penalty could not rest on that uncertain basis but must identify with precision the class of case to which it applies. I question also how far there would be public support for a law that prescribed capital punishment for the killing, say, of a bank clerk in a terrorist incident but not in the course of a violent robbery for purely financial gain.
There are other weighty questions about the effect of introducing capital punishment for terrorist murder which the House should address tonight. What assessment should be made of the deterrent effect? It may well be that on the fringe of terrorist organisations there are those who will be deterred by the risk of incurring the capital penalty who would not be deterred by the risk of long prison sentences. It is more difficult to believe that the risk of the capital penalty will affect the committed terrorist when one reflects on the enormous risks that he already runs, including the risk of death at his own hands or those of the security forces.
Another concern to be weighed is that the introduction of capital punishment for acts of terrorism would reinforce an existing trend to recruit into terrorist organisations ever younger and younger members. Before abolition no one under 18 could be executed, and I doubt that the


House, if it legislated to reintroduce the death penalty, would wish to set a lower age limit than that.
The other anxiety of many who oppose capital punishment for terrorist acts is the risk of reprisals. It cannot be assumed that any terrorist organisation would stand idly by while one of its members was tried and convicted of a capital offence. The taking of hostages, their use as bargaining counters, the threat of reprisals against them—all these things, we know, are the stock-in-trade of the terrorist organisation. During the period of the trial, and after conviction leading up to an execution, all those concerned with the trial and execution—judge, jury, police and prison officers—would surely be at particular risk.
The pressures which those risks, and hostage-takings if they occurred, would place upon the authorities in deciding whether the capital penalty should take effect would be very serious indeed. It would be no basis on which to decide whether the law should be allowed to take its course.
Against that risk, I readily acknowledge, must be weighed the continuing risk of hostage-taking and other reprisals created by the presence in the prisons of increasing numbers of those serving long sentences for terrorist crimes. There is also the very real question of how best to deal with those dangerous men for whom a life sentence may need to mean detention for the rest of their lives. We have to consider whether keeping a man in prison without hope may not seriously affect his attitude to prison staff and other prisoners and so create additional problems for our already over-burdened prisons.
We have also to consider whether in such cases it might not be more humane and sensible to end life quickly rather than condemn such men to a permanent prison existence.
It would not only be necessary to be precise about the classes of case to which capital punishment would apply. Another question of scope which would need to be answered is a geographical one. Here, my view, shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed, the Government as a whole, is quite clear and categorical.
So long as Parliament here at Westminster is responsible for enacting criminal law for the whole of the United Kingdom, the law on a matter as fundamental as the capital penalty must be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. It is obvious that that includes Northern Ireland.
In any event, since much of the thrust for the reintroduction of capital punishment derives from concern about terrorist killings, it would be paradoxical to introduce capital punishment for such killings in Great Britain where the risk is less, and not in Northern Ireland where the risk is much greater. That point was, I think, underlined both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds when he referred to the tragic number of men of the RUC who have been killed.
There is much that can be said about whether it would be right to bring back capital punishment, whether for terrorist killings or for a wider range of murders, in Northern Ireland in present circumstances. On this my own views will be clear from the position that I took in 1973, and I do not feel that I need go over the ground in detail now.
I have spoken already of the risk of hostage-taking and other reprisals. But there is one point that I need to bring out. In present circumstances, nearly all serious crime, and certainly all serious crime involving terrorism, is dealt with in Northern Ireland by special courts without a jury.
Those advocating the return of capital punishment must ask themselves whether it would be tolerable for the execution of a capital penalty to flow from a conviction reached not by a jury but by a judge alone. Whether or not the judges would accept it, I would venture the view that public opinion would not rest content with a system under which a man's life depended on the judgment of one other human being. But there is evidence enough in Northern Ireland to show that intimidation by terrorists of potential jurors would make it impossible at present to return to the normal practice of trial by jury. There would thus be posed a difficult problem with no easy or obvious solution but one which nevertheless must be faced by the House.


There is an important point of more general application to be made about juries. Since the abolition of capital punishment in England and Wales, we have seen the introduction, in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, of the majority verdict procedure. This was an innovation about which some had misgivings at the time, but it has settled down to become an accepted and valuable part of our criminal procedure.
Under it, a jury, subject to certain safeguards, may be authorised by the judge to bring in a finding of guilt by a majority of 11 to 1 or 10 to 2. Could the passing and execution of a capital sentence, based on a majority verdict, be justified? Could we justify the execution of someone about whose guilt two jurymen, or even one, were not persuaded? Would this not be a recipe for endless speculation thereafter about whether the accused was truly guilty, and, in the face of any remaining uncertainty, however slight, could the final penalty be justified?
But what other solution is there? To abandon the majority verdict procedure in all cases of a capital charge would mean depriving the system of criminal justice of a valuable protection against abuse.
It will be remembered that it was argued, in the days before abolition of the death penalty, that its existence led juries to acquit in cases in which, but for the death penalty, they would have convicted. But, then, could we legislate to the effect that, in a capital case, the capital sentence required a unanimous verdict while a majority verdict led to a lesser sentence?
Those who are disposed to answer " Yes " to that question should first consider the nature of the burden that it would place upon individual members of a jury. So, here, there is another difficult question of procedure which would need to be answered if the capital penalty were to be reintroduced.
I come now to a question which would directly concern me as Home Secretary and my Department—making provision for giving effect to capital sentences. No doubt, if Parliament decided that capital sentences should be exacted, the means of giving effect to the will of Parliament could and would be made available. But we should pause to consider what that

would mean to the prison staff who would be involved, directly or indirectly, in executions, and for the prison establishments in which executions would take place and for their other inmates.
Of course, executions took place in the past and were endured, if not always accepted, by those whose duty it was. But the prisons have been without executions for 15 years. Meanwhile, they have become more crowded and more restive. Society outside the prisons, and inside, has become less ready to accept calmly what it disapproves of and readier to take direct action to give expression to its disapproval. We should take full account, at this point, of a new factor, namely, the emotional impact of television and the effect on the public of having sustained, and perhaps violent, protests brought into every home.
In uttering these warnings I have execution by hanging at the back of my mind. A humane execution by means of hanging was, I understand, a skilled operation. Building up those skills, after this long interval, and equipping the prisons physically for this task once again would not be a negligible commitment. But it is a frequent protestation of the advocates of capital punishment that it need not mean hanging, and, moreover, that some would-be supporters of capital punishment hold back because of their disapproval of hanging as a method. Should we then carry out a survey of alternative methods?
The Gowers Commission suveyed methods in some detail 25 years ago, at a time when there was more information ready to hand than there is now. It looked at such methods as electrocution, gas and lethal injections. The relevant section of its report should be compulsory reading for anyone who supposes that there is some clean and easy manner of carrying out an execution.
The Royal Commission's conclusion was that of the possible methods hanging was the one to be preferred, except that the practicability of using lethal injections would repay examination in the light of progress made in the science of anaesthetics. No such further examination of course took place, in the light of other developments in relation to the use of capital punishment.
Should tonight's vote go in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment,


there could be, as I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, a re-examination to see whether any other method of execution could be found that was more acceptable than hanging.
I have referred more than once in this speech to the position of the Home Secretary in advising whether a capital sentence should take its course or whether there should be a reprieve. In this I have been assuming that the practice would be as it was before abolition. At the least, it seems clear that there must be some machinery for considering whether or not the law should take its course.
I am aware that there are those who have argued that this is too great a burden to place upon any one pair of shoulders. While I have some sympathy for that view, what is the alternative? I doubt very much whether it would be practicable or acceptable to place a discretion, as between a death sentence and some lesser sentence, on either the jury or the trial judge. As regards placing a discretion on the jury, I simply remind the House of what I said earlier about the position in Northern Ireland, about majority verdicts and about the risk of reprisals.
The idea of entrusting the task of deciding whether the law should take its course to some commission or committee, whether of Ministers or other experts, does not appeal to me. It would surely be found to operate against the taking of the firm decisions which are inseparable from the administration of a capital punishment law. Unpalatable though it may seem, I believe there is no substitute for a return to the old procedure under which this responsibility fell to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On one reading of the motion we are debating, the right to decide whether or not there should be capital punishment would rest with the trial judge. If it did, and it was confirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal, would the Home Secretary not agree with me that, under our present convention about the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, the Home Secretary would have no power to intervene?

Mr. Whitelaw: That would be for this House to decide when it came to consider the legislation. It would be one of the difficult questions that the House would have to decide in such circumstances.
In my judgment, the Home Secretary of the day must be willing to shoulder this responsibility, and to discharge it in the manner contemplated by Parliament. But no one should doubt the heaviness of that burden—a burden which must, moreover, be carried in the knowledge that no system of trial and appeal can offer infallible guarantees against wrongful convictions.
In conclusion, I want to look ahead, to the rest of this debate and beyond. If, by its vote tonight, the House declared itself in principle in favour of a return to capital punishment, it would be for consideration whether effect should be given to that decision by a Government Bill or by a Bill presented, as were successive abolition Bills, by a Private Member, with Government assistance as regards drafting and parliamentary time. It would also be for consideration whether there might not need to be some further parliamentary discussion, in some form or other, in order to determine the exact basis on which the death penalty was to be reintroduced.
I have been asked about the question of a free vote being granted by the Government in such an eventuality. Yes, I have the authority of the Government to say that this would be so. I do not believe that it would be easy to carry out. A certain number of members of the Government, with a part in preparing the legislation, could not conceivably have such a free vote. That would have to be accepted. Whatever their views, they would have to stand for the legislation that they had introduced or resign. This would create problems.
The problems inside the whole of Parliament, in seeking to move forward on this legislation, must not be underestimated by anyone who is putting the idea forward, particularly the problem of commanding majorities in Parliament for many of the provisions which would come forward. On a free vote, there could be no guarantee of that, in any circumstances, at any time. How a Bill, on that basis, would get through Parliament and what it would look like at the end is a matter that this House must seriously


consider when coming to a decision tonight.
However that may be, there is one personal factor that I must mention. In this debate I have tried to speak as Home Secretary. I do not believe that my personal judgment on the issue should be a central factor. My position is the same as that of any other hon. Member—my right to speak and vote is no more and no less. I think it right, however, to make it clear that, having considered all the arguments and all aspects of the issue once again since becoming Home Secretary, I have decided on balance that I must adhere to my previous position. That is to say, before abolition I was in favour of keeping the death penalty: since abolition I have always been against its reintroduction. I shall, therefore, cast my vote against tonight's motion.
In reaching that decision I recognise that I am going against the wishes probably of a majority of my own constituents and of people in the country as a whole. Of course, I regret that. However, I must say that after some 25 years in public life I have learned one thing. There are occasions when, whether as a Minister or as an hon. Member, one has to have the courage of one's inner personal convictions.
It is right that I should add, in conclusion, that if the motion is carried I shall see it as my duty to work closely and constructively on any legislation that may need to be prepared to give effect to the will of the House, and of course to play whatever part may be required of the Home Secretary in administering such legislation.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The whole House owes a debt of gratitude to the Home Secretary for his final words. In a moment of emotion such as this, when all of us know that popular feeling is strongly poised in one direction, it takes courage to stand against the popular will. However, I do not believe, any more than the Home Secretary does, that we should be doing our duty merely by echoing the popular opinion of the moment if we have come to the decided conclusion, on the evidence, that popular opinion is wrong. If we were to do that, I think that we should be doing less than our duty to our constituents. It is no

duty to them to lead in a direction that we know personally to be wrong.
The issue therefore comes back to us to decide, on the evidence, whether the proposition in the motion is right. The proposition seeks to take us back to the position before 1957. In the period of 12 years after the war up to that year there were 4,200 homicides in this country, of which 1,689 were decided by juries to be murder. In that time 160 men were hanged, and apparently it had no effect upon the figures for murder. Murders continued without diminution.
In the 12 years since capital punishment was abolished, in 1966, there were 4,762 homicides, of which 1,013 were classed by juries to be murder. The result of the figures is that the balance of homicides before or after the abolition of capital punishment is roughly the same. The figures for murder have gone down, although I readily accept that the definition of murder is different now from what it was before 1957.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), I do not simply shrug off the figures and rely upon subjective assumptions about the way that people react. The figures tend to give us some kind of pattern. That pattern tends to suggest that there has been no substantial increase in the rate of murder since the abolition of the death penalty, and that if we were to reinstate that penalty there would be no diminution in the incidence of murder.
But the figures do not indicate, by the standards of traffic accidents, a substantial number of individuals. All of us regret the loss of human life, whether it is of the victim or the murderer, but at any time a debate such as this is a significant pointer to the way in which this country reacts in administering a penalty upon its criminals, and therefore says something about the nature of our society. It has wider implications than merely what is the appropriate penalty for murder.
I hope that that argument will not be pressed too hard in the debate, because there are those who have not yet spoken but who may sneak in the debate, and who certainly speak outside, who tend to suggest that the restoration of capital punishment will somehow bring moral


fibre back to a society that has become increasingly irresponsible. They tend to suggest that in a more defined way its restoration will have some kind of repercussive effect upon the incidence of crimes other than murder, and even of crimes other than crimes of violence.
I suggest that there is no such pattern. Capital punishment has to be decided upon in the light of what we think is the appropriate sentence for murder. Its implications for any other kind of offence, or for society at large, and least of all as some kind of sop to a society that has been failing morally and economically, are irrelevant to our consideration today.
We must return to the facts; we cannot shrug them off. They indicate that in 1967 there were 354 homicides. In 1977 there were 432, a rise of about 25 per cent. But in an increasingly violent society it is inevitable that there will be an increase in the murder rate. The greatest significance of the figures is that, as a percentage of violent crime, murder has fallen—not increased—since 1957 from 3·4 per cent. to 0·7 per cent. last year.
Of course, that indicates that there has been a considerable increase in violent crime, and some hon. Members try to equate the two. But, again, it has to be stressed that murder is almost sui generis in our criminal calendar. There, 75 per cent. of those offences relate to domestic incidents between people who know each other. The number of people who are killed in the course of the kind of crime that was itemised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is very small. It was small before the abolition of capital punishment and it was small afterwards.
The hon. Member spoke for the police force. I have no objection to any hon. Member speaking for the police force. I wish that the person who introduced our debate upon this vital subject had not been a paid lobbyist for the police force. The point of view of the police has to be put, and we must consider it, but I regret that it should have been the police lobbyist who put it here today. Most of the argument that he used was a subjective assessment of their attitudes and the evidence that the police had adduced in favour of those attitudes.
Before 1967, eight police officers were killed in the course of their duty. Since

that year there have been seven such deaths. The abolition of the death penalty has laid no significant burden upon the police in carrying out their duties.
I listened with close attention to what the hon. Gentleman said about the few seconds when a police officer is faced with a criminal with a gun. No one can be sure what the significance of those seconds is. I do not accept that the incidence of detection of violent crime has fallen as a result of the abolition of the death penalty. In recent years the incidence of detection has increased. I stress that the real deterrent to crime, including murder, is the certainty of being caught rather than the type of punishment that may be administered once one is caught.
The argument in favour of capital punishment for the murder of prison officers is even worse. Only one prison officer has been murdered in the last 20 years. That person was murdered at a time when the death penalty was in operation.
The evidence indicates that there has been an increase in the number of shotgun murders. Nine people have been killed by shotguns in the course of theft since the death penalty was abolished; none was killed in that way before. There has been an increase in the number of criminals carrying shotguns, but there is no correlation between the carrying of shotguns and actual deaths. Experience with criminals in the courts and the figures tend to indicate that the criminal carries a shotgun to frighten those whom he intends to rob, and that he has no intention of using it, whether or not there is a death penalty. The death penalty is completely irrelevant to the increase in shotgun murders.

Mr. John Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statistics in relation to armed crime also show that the preferred weapon of the criminal is still the pistol or the revolver?

Mr. Lyon: I accept the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the shotgun lobby in Britain. My point remains valid, whatever the weapon. There has been an increase in terrorism recently, due mainly to the problems in Northern Ireland that have spilled over into this country. The figures are significant, because even with the increased terrorism in Northern Ireland there have been only three incidents


in England and Wales. They occurred between 1976 and 1977. Those three incidents account for most of the deaths from terrorism. I do not accept the argument that in terms of his decision to carry out an operation a terrorist will be affected by the knowledge that the death penalty exists for that kind of murder.
The difficulty arises in defining the type of murder for which the death penalty might be appropriate. On the last occasion when this subject was debated it served only to persuade Lord Chief Justice Parker—who until then had been in favour of hanging—that it was impossible to strike an acceptable line between the categories. As I have indicated, those categories are few.
Some hon. Members will argue that whatever the significance of the figures in the argument about deterrents, it is none the less justifiable to support the death penalty from the premise of retribution. I reject that argument. It has been suggested that there is something fitting about taking the life of a murderer, but the House must consider the possibility of mistakes. I stress that partly because I feel it intensely and partly because I have direct evidence, gained from my experience as a Minister at the Home Office, that mistakes occur in convictions for murder and other offences.
I remember the Confait case. It was extremely difficult for the Home Secretary to intervene, yet I was reasonably sure that there had been a miscarriage of justice. When that case went back to the Court of Appeal, the court decided that there had been an error in the conviction. If the death penalty had been in existence, a mentally deformed man of 19 with a mental age of 5 would have been convicted. He was not executed, but we do not know what might have resulted had capital punishment existed at that time. Of the 160 people who were executed before 1957, at least three were innocent.
One cannot argue that death is a fitting penalty, because it is irreversible. It is bad enough to put a man such as Virag in prison for five years before discovering that he should never have been there at all; it is difficult to know how to compensate him for those lost years. What can be done if an innocent man has been hanged? The death penalty is not an

appropriate sentence to pass on any human being.
When I was a Minister, two Conservative Members came to me with a case involving a chauffeur who was alleged to have murdered his wife. The employer was deeply distressed, believing that his chauffeur was innocent and that there had been a mistake. He persuaded the two hon. Members that a mistake had occurred. I considered the case carefully and concluded that if I had been on the jury I could not have decided whether the man was guilty. I would probably have acquitted him. However, I could not intervene, for the reasons that I gave during my intervention in the Home Secretary's speech.
The Home Secretary's right to intervene in the Royal Prerogative is limited by convention to cases where the original court did not have certain evidence before it. The Home Secretary can intervene only when new evidence comes to light. I agree with the Home Secretary that if a trial judge decides that the death penalty is appropriate, and that is confirmed on appeal by three judges at the Court of Appeal, it is extremely difficult for the Home Secretary to take upon himself the right to criticise that judgment.
Whatever the outcome tonight, that is not the way in which to proceed in any Bill. We cannot leave the decision to the judges. If the resolution is passed we must decide upon appropriate categories. For that reason it is impossible to say that there is a choice between capital punishment for all types of murder and capital punishment for some types of murder. The difficulty involved in defining categories has been exemplified many times before. The House cannot rid itself of its responsibility by placing that burden upon the backs of the judges.
I conclude that we must vote against the motion, whatever public opinion may be. In 1964, in his closing words, Sydney Silverman said that what we were then doing was to light a little candle. Since that time there have been so many assaults upon our social values that we are under threat even by the standards of 1964. If we put out that little candle tonight, our society will slip back a considerable way and we shall be further from the civilised standards that we should try to attain. I


therefore ask the House to reject the motion.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Charles Irving: I have always had a great admiration for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and before he leaves the Chamber, which he is about to do, I wish to pay a sincere tribute to one of the best speeches that my right hon. Friend has contributed to the House. It was a sincere, dedicated and influential speech to which many of us were proud to listen. If I may say so, it was Willie's finest hour. I know that that is not parliamentary language, but if my right hon. Friend will forgive my saying so, he has enhanced his value in the minds of many of us who have sat not for the first time through a debate of this sort.
Five years ago, in my maiden speech, I expressed the hope that we had seen the last of that obscene public servant, the hangman. Call him the executioner or whatever one wishes, but that is my view. The success of the motion would dash that hope. It is one shared by many citizens of all political persuasions, who totally recoil from the prospect that the killing of offenders might once again become a part of our penal system.
It is interesting to reflect that of the many hundreds of letters that we all receive on varying matters, I in my constituency have had far more letters against the motion than in favour of it. For the first time since 1964, prison governors and prison officers would be required to participate in arranging the deaths of some of their charges, guarding them before their execution and finally escorting them to the gallows.
I have had over 25 years' experience of the after-care side of the prison service and of penal reform. I am aware of the degrading conditions that exist in our prisons for both men and women. I know that there are many in the prison service who would leave rather than take part in the macabre and devastating effect of reintroducing executions, even though there may be only few within our prison walls each year.
It was interesting to read the autobiography of Albert Pierrepoint, the last hangman. It is significant that he wrote:

 I now sincerely hope that no man is ever called upon to carry out another execution in my country. I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing. Capital punishment is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree.
It would be in my view utterly wrong to ask public servants to carry out such duties without the most conclusive evidence that the death penalty is a unique deterrent against murder, and so far I have failed to hear any such evidence.
It is true that in the few years following the abolition of capital punishment in 1965 there was an increase in murders estimated as capital. However, that increase began before abolition. Secondly, there was a corresponding increase in non-capital murder, for which there was no change in the penalties. Secondly, there was a corresponding increase in crimes of violence generally, for which again there was no change in the penalties. Finally, we must remember that changes in figures for murders classified as capital are not very reliable. I am told—this has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend—that juries were more reluctant to convict defendants of capital murder while capital punishment was in force.
Professor Morris and Louis Blom-Cooper concluded in their recent analysis of murder figures since 1957 that
 nothing in the data begins to suggest that abolition has had any significant impact, or indeed any effect upon the phenomenon of homicide.
That view is reinforced by the research of Professor Walter Reckless, who considered the situation in the United States, an especially interesting country to study as the states vary so widely in their penalties for murder. The professor compared the homicide rates in abolitionist and neighbouring retentionist states. He considered the incidence of murder in states which abolished and later restored capital punishment. He considered the number of murders shortly before and shortly after the death sentence was carried out. He even compared the killings of policemen in cities of abolitionist and retentionist states and the number of fatal assaults in prisons. The professor concluded that none of these sources contained any evidence that the absence of the death penalty increases murder.
In short, there is no real evidence that capital punishment is a greater deterrent


to murder than long prison sentences. Indeed, because it is widely acknowledged that most murders are matters of emotion and impulse very largely within families or between former lovers, most advocates of capital punishment favour restricting it to particular types of murder thought to be more suspectible to deterrence.
The Homicide Act 1957 attempted to make such distinctions but with disastrous and morally indefensible results. For example, poisoning and strangling are not notably morally better than shooting, but under the Homicide Act the latter merited the death penalty while the former did not. Murder in the course of furtherance of theft was capital, but murder of a relative for an insurance policy or an inheritance was not. In 1965 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, stated publicly that he and all the judges were disgusted with the effects of the Act under which equally blameworthy persons were frequently treated so differently. Yet the intractable problems of making such distinctions between capital and non-capital murder would inevitably recur if hanging were brought back.
No one in the debate today has been able to offer any satisfactory solution. There have, of course, been suggestions that capital punishment should be reintroduced specifically for terrorist offences. I fully share the feelings of intense revulsion aroused by terrorist bombings. There may be a logic that some would use to justify such happenings, but it is one hidden from ordinary reason and totally foreign to all feelings of common humanity. Indeed, some terrorist crimes are so appalling that the only proper response even for a long-convinced abolitionist such as myself must be to stop and reconsider whether the death penalty may be justified in these extreme circumstances.
As the cry for total retribution goes up not only in the streets of Britain but in the Lobbies of Westminster, we must realise that such a decision by Parliament would bring appalling perils, not only for the community but for law and order itself. After deep reflection, I am more than ever convinced that capital punishment will make the fight against terrorism even more difficult than it is now.

Mr. Peter Robinson: rose—

Mr. Irving: I shall not give way. I do not get up very often, so I shall not sit down now.
For example, it is quite conceivable that IRA terrorists would deliberately—this was mentioned by three hon. Members—train teenagers to kill on their behalf, knowing that they would be too young to be executed.
On a different point, the last time that British firing squads shot the murderers of the Irish republican movement was in the wake of the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin. The result of those shootings was a massive shift of Irish sympathies that led directly to the establishment of the era of the partition of Ireland. Today the IRA would welcome a fresh crop of martyrs to renew the faith of its supporters. It is significant that most senior Army officers in Ireland, and many senior police officers in both Ireland and this country, are opposed to the death penalty, believing that it would hinder rather than help the fight against terrorists. They appreciate more than anyone that the defeat of terrorism involves driving a wedge between the terrorist group and the section of the community which supports it. That would be far more difficult if capital punishment were to create a new generation of martyrs.
In Northern Ireland itself capital punishment was rightly abolished by a Conservative Government in 1973 as a considered act of policy in the middle of a terrorist campaign. It would he a tragedy if this new Parliament were to reintroduce hanging for the mainland. I recognise that in saying so I am running counter to a strong body of opinion both in the country and in the House. I fear that while we are all debating hotly the pros and cons of capital punishment, we shall forget that the most effective deterrent for murder—and indeed all other crimes—is the certainty of being caught. We shall do more to preserve innocent lives by strengthening our police forces and encouraging ordinary citizens to support the police than we shall ever achieve by bringing back the hangman's noose.

Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not almost unprecedented—and at


least extremely discourteous—that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who moved the motion, should have absented himself from the House for so long a period of time, more particularly as he has the right of reply? He missed the speech of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Is that not a matter that should concern the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Fortunately, I do not have to rule on that matter of courtesy.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a correction of fact, I left four minutes before the Home Secretary sat down, by prearrangement.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Like the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who has just concluded a most impressive speech, I, too, should like to begin by congratulating the Home Secretary on a clear, comprehensive and, indeed, courageous review of the events which have attended the long history of this matter and the considerations which the House must have in mind when reaching its decision. I intend to emphasise only one or two of the points that he made.
When, in 1964 and 1965, we debated Sydney Silverman's Bill and passed it into law, we did two things. First, we suspended for five years—later we renewed it—the operation of the death penalty for murder. Secondly, we made a judgment on the experiment of the 1957 Act, which introduced the concept of categories of wickedness.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of procedure, as I did at the commencement of the debate. I know that it will not get anywhere. Nevertheless, I want to raise it. There have been seven speakers so far, including the mover of the motion, a Back Bencher speaker, and five speeches by Privy Councillors. We know the purpose of Privy Councillors. However, a liberty is being taken with Back Benchers. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, cannot do anything. I leave the House, having made my protest.

Mr. Silkin: I was saying, speaking as a voluntary Back Bencher, that, in addition to suspending the death sentence, the 1965 Bill enabled the House to form its judgment on the categorisation of murders into the more wicked and the less wicked, the executable and non-executable, as it were, that had been tried in 1957. That is not merely theoretical.
Those of us who took part in the debates on the Sydney Silverman Bill will recall that many amendments sought to exempt from the abolition of capital punishment specific classes of murder—murders of policemen and prison officers—to try to retain this categorisation, even if in a much less pronounced form than under the 1957 Act. All those amendments failed because both Houses of Parliament were clearly of the view, which has been expressed tonight and was by the judges at that time, that there was no acceptable way of categorising between the more wicked and the less wicked in a manner which the courts could operate. This motion asks the House to express its belief that
 the sentence of capital punishment should again be available to the courts.
It seems to me that that is not sufficient. If the mover is to carry the House with him, he should have said precisely in what conditions a sentence of death should be executed.
The 1965 Bill became law. We had our debate on its renewal five years later. We have had many debates since then, each of which has gone against the restoration of capital punishment. The most significant of all those debates was the one that took place in 1973 on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, when the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland introduced on Report a new clause abolishing the death penalty for Northern Ireland.
The reason why it was most significant was that in that Bill we were introducing detention without trial for terrorists. We were depriving terrorists of the right to a jury trial in many cases. We were giving the Attorney-General a function that I had to undertake for five years—the unfettered right to decide whether a defendant should have a jury trial. We were withdrawing many of the safeguards that had been accepted over the years against the introduction, for example, of confessions in circumstances which the courts


regarded as unfair. All those things were done because at that time we had in Northern Ireland a situation in which murder, bombing, explosions and the breakdown of civil law had reached a point at which it was felt that measures less than those were insufficient to deal with the gravity of the position.
It was in those conditons that the right hon. Gentleman at that time—I believe very courageously—introduced his amendment to abolish the death penalty in Northern Ireland, and this House and the other place agreed to it. The significance of that is surely this: if it could be said that the death penalty is a unique deterrent to the terrorist and the militant, to the person who is an enemy, or regards himself as an enemy, of established society, there could not have been a worse time at which to abolish the death penalty in Northern Ireland, because it was at the very time when the terror was at its height. If the argument for restoration were a proper one, the House would be bearing and would have borne a heavy responsibility indeed, in that at that very time it was removing this unique deterrent, this potent weapon, against the murders, the bombings and the explosions that were taking place. We can only judge, of course, by results, but the results are there to be seen. There has not been, as a result of that action, at any time a marked increase in the murders, the explosions and the bombings in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the tendency has been very much the reverse.
If we are to ask ourselves what there is about terrorism to justify us in reintroducing the death penalty—for which the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) argued in his powerful speech, which was confined almost entirely to terrorism—let us ask ourselves why Parliament took that step in 1973. Was it wrong to take that step? As a result of taking that step in 1973, for the loss of how many lives are we responsible? I suggest to the House that the answer is that we were not wrong; we were absolutely right.
Many of the reasons have been given. We know that terrorists are people who have a particular attitude towards society. They are people who regard the forces of law and order, the Establishment, as their enemies. They are not likely to be deterred by being made martyrs by

being hanged or otherwise done to death by the people whom they regard as their enemies. Indeed, the reaction to capital punishment might well be that the terrorists would seek to take hostages or to indulge in kidnapping. Worst of all, there might be retaliation, so that every time a terrorist was hanged or put to death judicially, a number of representatives of the security forces, or innocent citizens, would be put to death by the terrorists.
I should like to refer to one further point which springs to mind from my own experience. One of the most difficult and painful tasks that I had to perform—fortunately rarely—was to assist in the decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. I was asked to play a part in consultation on whether we should proceed with murder charges against soldiers, members of the security forces, who had killed sometimes perfectly innocent people in the belief that they were terrorists.
Those were the most painful decisions that one had to make. They were painful because one knew the conditions in which young soldiers were having to do their duty in Northern Ireland. There was not only the tension but the knowledge that their comrades had been killed. One knew of all the other terrible conditions that they had to endure. Yet one came across cases where the evidence for the prosecution appeared to be so strong that one would have been failing in one's public duty if one had not agreed to prosecution taking place. Fortunately—I say it with much relief—in each of the cases that came to light the men were eventually acquitted. But, of course, the time might come when a member of the security forces might be convicted of such a charge.
I am not suggesting that anything flowing from this debate would be likely to cause a position to arise in which such a soldier, doing his duty but doing it wrongly, and committing in the course of that duty the murder of an innocent person, would be hanged or otherwise executed. I am sure that that could not possibly happen, but the very fact that it would not happen would be an added argument enabling the enemies of society to say that there was discrimination against them and that their comrades had been hanged when members of the


security forces had not been dealt with similarly for the same sort of crime. That seems to me to be an added reason for saying that the reintroduction of capital punishment for terrorists would be counterproductive in its effect.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that there was no evidence to establish that the position in Northern Ireland might have improved had capital punishment been in force. I draw his attention to a letter in the Belfast Telegraph of 23 February 1978 under the heading
 A convicted killer's call to Mason: Death penalty only way to stop them ".
In the letter the writer claims—and this is not just his own personal view—that in the cell in a compound in which 15 other convicted prisoners joined him, every one of them would not have carried out the act of murder had the rope been at the end of it.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member has made his brief speech, and I hope that he will not expect me to comment upon it.
I should like to refer to what I said in concluding a speech that I made 14 or more years ago during the Second Reading of Sydney Silverman's Bill. I passionately believe that in matters of this kind the State must set an example to the community. If the State declares that it is legitimate and right to take human life, whether as a penalty for some wrongful act or otherwise, it cannot expect that its citizens will do other than say " This is the standard which is set by the State ". Equally, if the State sets a standard by saying that however wicked or heinous the crime of murder, whether we are talking about the Christies, the Bradys or the terrorists in Northern Ireland—and I find it hard to distinguish between these classes—it is wrong for the State to take life in retribution, I believe that there is some chance that the citizen will follow that example.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I promise the House that I do not intend to speak for long, because much of what I wished to say has already been said, and I do not believe that there is any advantage in repeating it.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on introducing this debate. He introduced it with lucidity, and in common with other hon. Members who have spoken I congratulate him very much indeed. What he did was to express in an extremely clear way what is felt by the majority of the public today. At the same time, he also expressed—as, indeed, one would expect him to do—the views of the Police Federation, which he represents in this House. When there is this strong public opinion in the country, it is only right that the House should have the opportunity of debating this important issue. That is only right, because many newspapers have suggested that the House should consider public opinion very carefully in regard to this important matter.
I begin by mentioning that fact. There is no doubt that, in the main, public opinion would wish the House to pass the motion. Personally, I have no hesitation at all in voting against it. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that he did not believe in a referendum. He also did not believe that an individual Member of this House should operate other than in accordance with his judgment and conscience. Therefore, public opinion is important and must be considered very carefully by us as representatives of the public. We owe the public great respect. But we also owe the public our judgment, and that judgment must be exercised in accordance with our conscience.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It was a speech that has given the House enormous help in its consideration of this important question. I do not intend to repeat much of what my right hon. Friend said, but no hon. Member who heard his contribution can be other than helped when considering which way he or she should vote.
For many years—for well over 20 years, ever since the first debate on capital punishment in the 1950s—I have always voted for the abolition of capital punishment. I have never tried to hide that from anyone. My constituents know about it in both the constituencies that I have represented. During the last election, when questions were asked of me at public meetings, I unequivocally said where I stood. I have held that view for many


years, not because I have any moral feeling about it—there is no question of the sanctity of life or that sort of thing—because that is not the paramount consideration. To my mind, the paramount consideration has always been the reality of the situation. It has also been the protection of the public and the public interest. The most important consideration is that the State must protect society, and, looking at the matter from as intellectual point of view as I could, I have had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that I am an abolitionist.
In civilised society, the taking of human life by the State is justified only when there is the clearest evidence of need. If that evidence is not there, one cannot justify the taking of life by the State. Of course, one could go into great detail. It is now 16 years since there has been an execution in England and Wales. The whole of Western Europe, with the exception of France and Eire, has abolished capital punishment. I think that it is right to say that the last execution in France took place about three years ago.
Therefore, the question we must ask ourselves is whether capital punishment is right on the basis of what my hon. Friend has said. He talked in terms of the anxieties that exist in this country, anxieties that have been born out of the growth in violence that has taken place in society over the last few years. Those anxieties mean that people are asking " Is there a method left which can help us and give us the greater security that we need? " Is it right that those undoubted worries that exist can be allayed to good effect by the reintroduction of capital punishment? The question is whether it is imperative—that is probably the right word—that we should change now.
There are two grounds for imposing punishment, in particular capital punishment. One ground is retribution, and the other is deterrence. We have heard a lot about deterrence during the debate. Of course, retribution should contain no element of vengeance, and I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member would suggest that it should. Retribution is society marking its abhorrence of a particular crime and, therefore, exacting a penalty on the person who committed that crime, which clearly indicates the abhorrence of society. That is what retribution is.
I can remember when the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) first came to this House. I think that he made his maiden speech on this very subject. At that time, I can remember him talking about the paradox that if one abhors the taking of human life—as, indeed, many people do—and considers that it is so evil that there must be just retribution to demonstrate the abhorrence that one feels, one marks it by doing precisely the same. One therefore has that paradox when dealing with capital punishment.
We could examine the unique deterrent argument in detail, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham assisted the House greatly with the figures that he gave, and I do not intend to repeat what was said. I think it is agreed that few murderers are acting rationally at the time of their crime. Although it is possible that capital punishment may deter those who are coldly calculating a murder, it is also known that there are certain mentally disturbed people for whom capital punishment has a strange attraction. I do not think we are in a position to balance the various arguments effectively.
I am absolutely satisfied that capital punishment would not he a deterrent to terrorist activity. Certain individuals may be deterred, but terrorist activity generally would in no way be prevented.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. and learned Friend knows how much I respect his experience and judgment, but in so far as some terrorist murders are committed by hired professional international killers who do it for money, is he disposing of the notion that it would be more expensive for terrorist organisations to hire those men if they knew that one of the calculations they must make is that they too will die?

Mr. Thomas: I am sure of one thing. The death penalty does not deter the professional hired man. The international hit man risks the death penalty in various countries and is not at all deterred. He does not exepect to be caught, and the only thing that would deter him is the possibility of being caught or arrested. Although I do not believe it is a great argument in favour of my hon. Friend's motion, I agree that if we were to have capital punishment, the hit man who charges for his services would probably


up the ante and expect to be paid a little more. I have not worked out how that would assist society, and I do not believe that it is one of the most impressive arguments in my hon. Friend's armoury.
I said that I would be brief and I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments. It is right that the House should consider the question of mistakes. In the many years that I have been at the Bar, I have longed to be able to say that British justice is not only the finest in the world but is truly infallible. I am afraid that I cannot, and where there is fallibility and a mistake is made, if the setence is capital punishment, it is dreadfully final.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the fact that in about 15 minutes in the Library this afternoon I found no fewer than nine cases where convicted murderers had been sent to prison, let out and they killed again? In two cases they had not been let out of prison but killed other prisoners.

Mr. Thomas: That shows that when they were let out, whoever considered the matter and released them had not done so with sufficient care.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Can my right hon. and learned Friend guarantee that killers will not be let out in future who will kill again if we do not reintroduce capital punishment and finalise the matter?

Miss Joan Lestor: If the motion is approved, there will be a risk of hanging the innocent. That must be considered too.

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) knows well that I cannot give the guarantee for which he asks. I am not in a position to do so. I hope, however, that those in authority will ensure that people are kept in custody for the requisite amount of time. I do not like to talk of my personal experience, but I have been in many murder cases over the past few years. In most of those cases the judge recommended that the guilty man should not be released for a certain number of years, and I hope that that is kept to.
The time between arrest and judicial punishment is an important consideration. It inevitably takes a long time. There are committal proceedings, the hearing before the Crown court and probably an appeal. The inevitable points of law in a terrorist murder might even involve going to the Lords. The long delay between arrest and judicial punishment makes the whole idea of that punishment anathema to the public generally. At present the public are frightened and long to think that the Government will take positive action to cope with the mounting violence.
I hope that people do not get the impression from listening to such speeches as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that murder is rife in the United Kingdom—and I am talking of England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland is at present in a totally different position. Murder is comparatively rare. A few days ago in a newspaper I saw a report of something that Sir Robert Mark said. That article pointed out that in this country of 50 million people, in the course of a year there are fewer than 500 homicides. The United States of America, with four and a half times our population, has something like 19,000 murders a year.
In the last decade the number of indictable offences in this country has increased five times, and the biggest increase has been in crimes of violence. We do not know why that is so, but a more affluent and permissive society may have produced a change in the pattern of behaviour. Despite that enormous increase, however, murder has not increased proportionately. If we exclude terrorist crimes, it remains at a comparatively low level. The number of people convicted for murder rarely reaches 100 a year. The House should not get the impression that murder is rife in this country.
I shall vote against the motion tonight because I believe it would be ineffective to reintroduce capital punishment. It would be a sad and sorry step backwards in the civilisation of our country.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Most right hon. and hon. Members would understand if I based my comments to-night on the Northern Ireland situation, but I shall resist the temptation, for two reasons. First, I am in favour of a return


to capital punishment not just for terrorism but for murder per se. Secondly, I speak as a member of the legislature of the United Kingdom as a whole. While I may borrow from tragic events in Ulster, I shall address my remarks to the motion before the House.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who was a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, has said that capital punishment did not work in the Province and that it was responsible for some of the terrorist problems that we have. That is not true. The last terrorists who received the death penalty in Northern Ireland were sentenced during the war.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary was expected to encounter the terrorists and become judge, jury and executioner all in one. That, in part, helped to alienate the RUC from a certain section of the community in Northern Ireland. That was the task that we imposed upon the RUC, and the same sort of problem will emerge in this part of the kingdom unless capital punishment is restored.
In countries such as the United States of America, Japan and Spain terrorism is endemic. In this country we shall experience more and more naked terrorism and violence because of the absence of capital punishment. Then we shall place the police in this country in the same situation as the RUC. That will be a dreadful negation of duty on the part of this House.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Whatever other difficulties there may be in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member must face up to one specific difficulty—the fact that at the moment it is not possible to empanel a jury for terrorist offences in the Province. If we had capital punishment, how would it be possible to ensure that a jury could be empanelled, protected and not intimidated?

Mr. Bradford: I shall try to respond to that honestly. On two occasions Northern Ireland has been prepared to adopt policies that inflict hurt on the Province, such is its abhorrence of terrorism and determination to stamp it out. Hon. Members must remember that there is not one family in Northern Ireland that has not been affected by terrorism, death and murder in some way. The Northern

Ireland community does not expect its Members of Parliament merely to say that they abhor terrorism and want to see ruthless and unrelenting steps taken to deal with it; they are prepared to back up their Members by serving on juries. I would not be happy about the conviction of a terrorist without a jury trial, but I know that people in Northern Ireland would be prepared to serve on a jury.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Member aware that upstairs in Committee when the decision was taken to abolish juries in Northern Ireland the official Opposition voted against that abolition? In fact, the opposition to it was led by the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin).

Mr. Bradford: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that pertinent comment.
I move to the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who said that the application of capital punishment caused the great furore in the South of Ireland in 1916. That is not so. After 1916 a constitution was put to that part of the island and on two occasions it accepted the constitutional proposals, but these were overthrown by the gunmen, the bombers and others who perpetrated violence.
I return to the all-important point that violence and murder are liberty divorced from authority, because liberty divorced from authority becomes licence.
I move to another point that has not been raised today—

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: rose—

Mr. Bradford: I will not give way, because time is short and I am coming to the main burden of my speech. I care not at the end of the day whether capital punishment is proved a deterrent or not. I believe that this House must accept the point that a civilised society cannot proceed without a developed concept of punishment. I am not talking about vengence or revenge—

Mrs. Renée Short: Yes, you are.

Mr. Bradford: No, I am not. I am talking about what a very eminent writer called " deserts ". I quote his words:
 According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because be deserves it, and as


much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. When this theory is combined, as frequently happens, with the belief that all crime is more or less pathological, the idea of mending tails off into that of healing or curing and punishment becomes therapeutic. Thus it appears at first sight that we have passed through the harsh and self-righteous notion of giving the wicked their deserts to the charitable and enlightened one of tending the psychologically sick. What could be more amiable?
One little point which is taken for granted in this theory needs, however, to be made explicit. The things done to the criminal, even it they are called cures, will be just as compulsory as they were in the old days, when they were called punishments. If a tendency to steal can be cured by psychotherapy, the thief will no doubt be forced to undergo the treatment. Otherwise, society cannot continue … Thus, when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him and deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ' case ' ".
That is a telling argument for the acceptance of the concept of punishment in any civilised society. The writer is C. S. Lewis, who may not commend himself to other hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Benches.
The corollary of the argument of the necessity for punishment is that punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Again, it is not a question of violent vengeance or revenge; it is a question of the premium that one places on human life. If the premium is low, one invites violence, murder and destruction. If the premium placed on human life is high, that in itself becomes a deterrent of sorts.
I wish to move on to deal with the question of deterrence, and I make one small point in passing. Whomsoever is not deterred by capital punishment? The person who is hanged for murder most certainly is deterred. We heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) that some people after release from prison have murdered again. The death penalty certainly deters in that respect.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Will the hon. Gentleman put the other side of the equation? What effect will such a situation have on the other members of a

terrorist organisation in terms of recruitment, morale and all the rest of it? Many terrorist leaders are alive today—many of them are high-ranking politicians and leaders in certain countries—and if the hon. Gentleman speaks to them they will point to the other side of the equation.

Mr. Bradford: I shall come to that point in the final passages of my speech.
I wish now to deal with the subject of hostages. That argument has been frequently employed today, but it has been used to a nonsensical degree. What kind of society would we become—indeed, what sort of legislature would this place be—if we took action only on the basis of the reaction on criminals, murderers and terrorists? I believe that we would disgrace those who sent us here if we took action only in the light of possible terrorist reaction.
Mention has been made of the terrorists taking hostages and shooting policemen and prison officers. But terrorists need no excuse to do such terrible things. They already take such action. They are shooting policemen and prison officers almost with impunity within the Province. They do not need excuses and they do not need to wait until we give them the opportunity to take hostages. If the taking of hostages advanced their jaundiced objectives, hostages would have become part of their policy a long time ago.
I turn to the subject of inadequacy of prison sentencing patterns for crimes of violence and murder. I shall not speculate because what I say is not mere conjecture. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Mansfield will bear out what I am about to say. In 1978 in Northern Ireland 19 people who committed murder were released, as also were 65 people who caused explosions, 84 persons who were guilty of firearms offences and 105 persons who were guilty of armed robbery. In this year of 1979 a total of 237 people in all those categories, including murder, will be released. In 1980, 150 people in all those categories, including murder, will be released. In 1981, 101 persons in all those categories, including murder, will find themselves on the streets again. After 1981, 64 murderers will be released to stalk the streets of Northern Ireland. A total of 168 in all those categories, including murder, will be released. What kind of confidence can the Province have in sentencing patterns of that sort? If


there is no attempt to deal with murderers, the Province is in for a very difficult time indeed.
Some people say that the great object is to catch the criminals. All these men were caught and sentenced, but they will be found in the same huts and bars plotting the same kind of murders. They will put society at a disadvantage and create more widows and orphans. Yet we sit here, in the obscurity of pleasant England, as if there were no problem involving life and death in Northern Ireland. We must appreciate that the Province of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom as a whole looks to this Chamber for some leadership and guidance.

Mr. Concannon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House in quoting figures. He should have made it clear that those people were put through the courts and sentenced. Will he now say how many of the people who were given life sentences in Northern Ireland for terrorist offences are out on the streets, or will be let out on the streets? When I was in the Northern Ireland Office I received letters from correspondents who hoped that I would put a terminal date on life prison sentences, but we have never imposed a terminal date in respect of a man who has been sentenced to life imprisonment.

Mr. Bradford: That is a perfectly fair point.

Mr. Concannon: Then why not make it?

Mr. Bradford: I understand that about 270 people have been sentenced to life imprisonment and have not been let out on the streets. But we are talking about hundreds of prisoners who are let out on the streets. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] Yes, we are still talking of those who committed murder in the past and who are capable of becoming murderers again. I believe that this House should do its utmost to obviate that threat to society.
I wish now to deal with the points that have been made about the IRA's view of the death penalty. We are told that we should not pay too much attention to what the IRA says because its members seek only to mislead us. It is interesting that the IRA has said that

any Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland who speaks in favour of the death penalty or votes for it will be a target for the IRA. I am inclined not to take such threats lightly. I certainly do not think that statement by IRA members can be treated lightly. I believe that the IRA means what it says.
It should be emphasised that the IRA itself employs tactics of capital punishment. Only last month two of its members were executed because they contravened the discipline of the organisation and put it under threat. Therefore, IRA members fear capital punishment, because they certainly believe that it is a deterrent within their own organisation. I am sure that they would regard it as a deterrent if such a motion were passed in this House.
A document compiled by the security forces of the United Kingdom—a document that, unfortunately, was found by the IRA—observed that the IRA leaders did not want to become implicated in actual violence; they wanted to hide behind a great deal of the violence because their great fear was of detection. The sooner that we are in a position to involve such people in a conspiracy to murder and put them to death, the sooner the Province of Northern Ireland will be rid of the IRA.

7.58 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: For obvious reasons of brevity, I shall not take up time in commenting on earlier speeches, but I was very impressed by certain comments which have been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford).
It seems to be a prerequisite that one must declare one's attitude to capital punishment in general at the beginning of one's speech. I became an abolitionist long before I entered politics, as a result of talking to my godfather, the late Lord Justice du Parcq, who died many years ago. I remember him making the very valid point that the death penalty as a deterrent was only a small factor in the mind of murderers. He said that in all the murders he had tried, 90 per cent. of the murderers had not known when they shaved in the morning that by that evening they would have committed the crime of murder. I have always remembered that fact.
However, there is an important qualification. In the debate we have referred to domestic murders. Today there have been several testimonies to the late Sydney Silverman. I was one of the original supporters of his abolition Bill at a time when it was not popular among Conservatives to take that attitude. My important qualification is that under no circumstances do I agree with the ultimate withdrawal of the right of the State to exact capital punishment in cases of treason when an attempt has been made to use terror or killing in order to subvert the State. I said that at the time. I interrupted Sydney Silverman in his speech and he said that he accepted fully that attitude. It is on the record of many years ago—I cannot recall exactly when it was.
Since that time, when I have supported the case for abolition, I have always held my belief in that qualification, when the security and safety of the State and its citizens are threatened. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made one factual mistake today. He said that that sanction of the State no longer existed. It does. If he cares to study the Treason Acts he will discover that a number of terrorist crimes that have been referred to in the debate could well have been tried in our courts if the Attorney-General of the day had decided to invoke the Treason Acts. It is not a matter of moral argument, it is a matter of fact.
If the House of Commons wants the ultimate sanction of the State in times of peace not to include the ultimate sanction of the death penalty, we should have the honesty to repeal or amend the Treason Acts to that end. I have said that year after year and I repeat it tonight. Otherwise, we are being smug and hypocritical in saying that we are against capital punishment but that we would like the Treason Acts to remain on the books in case we decide to use them.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, but does he recognise that in that disgraceful episode of the interview on the " box " we would have been in a position to prosecute that person for treason for the murder of Airey Neave? The IRA are levying war against the

country. Once that is established, it is treason and it means that such a man can be executed and his fellow conspirators with him. If that is right, does my hon. Friend believe that the death penalty should be kept for that sort of case even if the death penalty does not apply for ordinary murder?

Sir F. Bennett: I do not wish to be drawn into arguments on a specific case. The former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), knows perfectly well that I wrote to him on the same matter years ago. The only purpose of my intervention tonight is to remind the House that the State possesses the ultimate penalty in the case of terrorist killings for a political end that amounts to treason.
If we wish to pursue that end, what is needed is not a change in the law but the observance of the present law. If the Law Officers of the day believe that they have a good case within the existing Treason Acts there should be the right to try a person for treason. If they do not take that attitude, the Treason Acts should be amended. There is no third answer, whatever people's points of view may be.
I have always been an abolitionist and I remain so for what has been referred to as domestic murder. It is a lighthearted phrase to use about domestic life but I know that hon. Members understand what I mean. However, the death penalty should apply to such cases as that in which children were bombed in Birmingham in order to try to terrorise the British Government into changing their policy on Ulster. I do not doubt that the persons concerned could and would have been found guilty by a jury in this country of treason.
It has occasionally been said to me that it is no good bringing up old Acts from 1351 because they are out of date and no longer relevant and that the job of Parliament is to repeal, amend or bring up to date those Acts, not to keep them in cold storage to be brought up when convenient. At the end of the last war there were trials for treason and people were executed. It was not said at that time that the Acts were out of date. They were used in order to impose justice. Nobody said that the Acts were irrelevant because they were several hundred years out of date.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Sir F. Bennett: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He said that he would speak for 5 minutes but he spoke for 17 minutes and bored me to death.
We should decide whether we wish capital punishment to remain the ultimate sanction of the State. The effect on terrorists of the death penalty has been mentioned. One of the curious things about post-war history, particularly in the period of the British dismantling of Empire, is that when we gave long sentences for terrorist activities those who were convicted laughed because they knew that independence was around the corner, that there would be an amnesty and that they would be freed. Many Irish terrorists who have been sentenced to 40 years believe—they may be wrong—that they will never serve the full sentence. They believe that if their terrorism mounts sufficiently the Government of the day will give way, as has been the case in many other parts of the world, and an amnesty will be part of the deal that ensues.
It has been said that the imposition of the death penalty will affect the position of hostages. I have done some research in the Library and I have discovered that in 90 per cent. of all kidnappings of hostages in this country and elsewhere, the demand to the Government of the day has been that they should release convicted terrorists who are already serving long sentences. If those terrorists were not serving long sentences, those demands could not be made. They would be dead.
Every day the newspapers carry stories of demands for sums of money accompanied by a demand for sanctuary for convicted terrorists to fly to Libya or elsewhere. Hon. Members should take that fact into account when deciding upon the general deterrent effect of the death penalty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has raised a matter that requires deeper consideration and deeper debate. For that reason, although I do not like his motion and I have tabled an amendment to it, I shall vote to keep the subject open in order to provide the opportunity for the matter that I have raised to be considered further.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on putting down the motion and opening the debate. I profoundly disagree with most of his remarks, and I shall vote against him tonight, but the subject is an important one which exercises the minds of all our constituents. Therefore, it is important that it should be debated in the House at an early opportunity, particularly after the election of a new Parliament. I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, perhaps not surprisingly in the context in which we debate this matter, have referred to the alleged deterrent effect of capital punishment for terrorism. By definition, however, terrorists are fanatics. They are true believers. They are wedded to a romantic ideal, and they are not likely to be susceptible to the deterrent effect which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and others of his hon. Friends mentioned. To have capital punishment available for acts of terrorism would simply feed the terrorists' zealotry. It would enhance their status because it would increase the risk they took in pursuit of their aims.
If capital punishment is such a great deterrent to the would-be terrorist, why was it not a deterrent in Spain, in Cyprus and in Palestine? No hon. Member who has put forward the proposition that capital punishment would deter terrorists from acts of terrorism has been able to substantiate that argument. In fact, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds blew his case wide open and threw it away when he acknowledged quite fairly and properly that the deterrent argument was not conducive to the making of one side of the case or the other. In those circumstances, one has to ask what the reasons are which can be advanced by those who wish to bring back capital punishment.
We have to take account of the consequences for an increase in terrorism of any potential reintroduction of capital punishment, because, if it could be demonstrated to me, as a convinced abolitionist, that the reintroduction of capital punishment would save lives, I should have to reconsider my position very seriously. That has not been shown in


any of the speeches supporting this motion. Not only have hon. Members on that side of the argument been unable to prove that the reintroduction of capital punishment would save lives; they have intimated or at least implied that far more lives would be lost, especially in the context of Northern Ireland, if we reintroduced capital punishment. Clearly we would be creating a new series of martyrs who would be sanctified and glorified in all the mythology of terrorism.
But let us consider what the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) said about hostages. Terrorists take hostages in all parts of the world for a variety of reasons. But it is not the case, as he suggested, that there would be no point in their taking hostages if the convicted terrorists had been killed. A long legal process has to be gone through before a man is sent to the gallows or to whatever other form of capital punishment is finally exacted. There is the process of remand before trial. There is the process of trial. There is the process of appeal against conviction or sentence. Does any hon. Member believe that in circumstances of that kind the IRA or any of the other scum who involve themselves in terrorism would not take hostages and demand the release of a prisoner convicted of murder who had been condemned to capital punishment? The immediate result would be a whole classroom of schoolchildren taken hostage and the demand that the convicted terrorist or murderer should be released.
I say categorically to the House that I would not be a party to any Government acceding to such a demand in any circumstances. But nor would I like it on my conscience to have voted for a motion which brought about those circumstances.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The hon. Member is not being quite fair to me. I said that 90 per cent. of all such demands included the release of convicted terrorists. That demand cannot arise if the convicted terrorists are no longer alive.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the motivation to take hostages in order to demand the release of a prisoner would be even greater if the prisoner concerned was likely to suffer the consequences of

capital punishment. That is self-evident, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would do the same if he were a member of a terrorist organisation, whether or not we condone it.
If we are to impose capital punishment for terrorism, are we seriously to do it and hang the convicted man or use whatever other means are available without a jury? That is the position in Northern Ireland at the moment, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), who is no longer in the Chamber, was not able adequately to answer my question to him. If we cannot empanel juries in Northern Ireland because we are afraid that they will be intimidated or that individual jurors will need permanent police protection, how can we ask the ordinary citizen in Northern Ireland to act as a juror if he is likely to have to convict a man and sentence him, in effect, to death by hanging? It is a tremendously precarious position in which to put any juror.
Yet would we in this House be prepared to hang a man or a woman who had not been tried and convicted by a jury? If we are prepared to do that in Northern Ireland, are we prepared to allow lesser offences for which convicted prisoners might lose their lives not to be tried by jurors? There are tremendous complications here which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and those who support him have barely acknowledged. I do not dispute their motives. I accept their sincerity, as I hope they will accept mine. But they have not demonstrated that the enormous difficulties that exist and the anomalies that would have to be overcome have been dealt with adequately in what they have said.
If it could be demonstrated clearly that innocent lives would be saved by the restoration of capital punishment, I should have to reconsider my decision very seriously, even if only in the context of terrorism and Northern Ireland. But that has not been demonstrated by any supporter of the motion so far.
I turn to other types of murder. The hon. Member for Torbay referred to " domestic" murders. The hon Member for Bury St. Edmunds deliberately left this matter open. However, if we pass this motion we have to ask whether


it is to be only terrorists who are to be subjected to capital punishment or whether we are to include the perpetrators of all the other types of murder which take place.
We know as a matter of fact that a significant proportion of murders in this country are family oriented. They take place in some kind of family context. A person who commits such a murder is not likely to go out and commit another in cold blood. We know that a substantial proportion of murders in the United Kingdom are committed by people who are mentally unbalanced or subnormal. We also know that more than a third of those who commit murder commit suicide almost immediately afterwards. To none of those three categories would capital punishment be an effective deterrent. It is not an adequate deterrent. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds admitted, the case has not been proved.
What else is there? What other motive can there be for supporting the motion? If we are not saying that we could save lives, if we are not able to prove objectively that capital punishment would act as a deterrent, what other justifications can there be for reintroducing such a barbaric penalty? The only one is revenge.
Revenge is a perfectly normal human response, but it is not one of which this House should take cognisance. This House should not be motivated by an emotion which is both distasteful and unnecessary. It demeans and degrades the society in which we live and the civilisation by which we stand if we embark upon a terrible act of this kind that cannot be shown to have any positive consequences when the only motive for it is so-called retribution but which by most people is meant to be revenge. The arguments against are compelling and overwhelming. We all know that mistakes have been made in the past. If we reintroduce capital punishment, we know that other mistakes will be made in the future.
Other hon. Members have mentioned one person who was released from prison this year who would otherwise have suffered capital punishment. There is also the case of Albert Taylor, who was reprieved from a life sentence but who would be in his grave now had we had capital punishment. The three boys in

the Maxwell Confait case in 1975 would probably have been subject to capital punishment. We accepted that a mistake had been made by the courts.
The distaste that is felt even by those who propose the return of capital punishment is indicated very clearly by their search for alternative methods of imposing the death penalty, whether it be garotting, inoculation, the gas chamber, the electric chair or whatever. Their distaste of actually using capital punishment is evident in that search.
I do not believe that it is right, proper or appropriate for an act of violence on the part of the State to be taken judicially in cold blood. For the State cold-bloodedly to take a life is something which I find reprehensible. It brings us down to the level of those whom we despise, whether they be murderers, IRA or other terrorist organisations. Why should we be forced to stoop to their level, or even to stoop to the level of degradation that would be involved in bringing back capital punishment, simply in order to take care of what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds actually came down to—the hit man? In the end, all his arguments were swept away and he said that he wanted capital punishment in order to take care of the professional hit man—the one who does it for a price.
We all accept that if capital punishment existed the price of the hit would rise—but that price would be paid. Make no mistake about that. The IRA and other terrorist organisations would find the money. They would find the money by other crimes, such as bank robberies, in which innocent lives would be lost. Even in that case the argument of the hon. Gentleman does not hold water.
I make a final point. Only a couple of months ago every hon. Member was presumably asked about his position on this issue. I accept the force of public opinion and that the majority of the general public would favour the return of capital punishment. I acknowledge that probably the overwhelming majority of my constituents would warmly endorse a vote in favour of the return of capital punishment.
However, the House has to use reason, not passion. The House has to exercise its judgment, not its prejudices. The House has to lead, not to follow. It is not the purpose or the function of the House to


allow passion and emotion to sway its views. We are representatives, not delegates. Let us always remember that fact, and always act as representatives and not as delegates.
When we surrender our convictions, our conscience and our judgment to anyone else—whoever it may be, for whatever reason, on whatever occasion—we lose the right to be here and we are not adequately performing our duty by our constituents. We have no right to be here unless we are prepared to exercise our conscience and our judgment on behalf of our constituents, and to take the consequences from them in general elections.
All of us, on both sides of the argument, must stand by our conviction of what is morally right and our judgment of what is in the interests of the people of Britain. I believe that both those considerations will be served by voting against the motion.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. John McQuade: The House will be aware that a short time ago I made my first speech on the subject now before it. For that reason it would be inappropriate for me to take up the time of the House in simply repeating the sentiments that I expressed then. Therefore, my contribution will be deliberately short. I will content myself with picking out one or two matters that, to my mind, have received inadequate consideration in the public debate that is taking place in this country.
First, when we talk of terrorist murders we are not speaking of killings that take place in the heat of passion, the fenzy of anger, or under the influence of jealousy or lust. It is true to say that the threat of death might not deter malefactors in any of these categories. Nor are we talking about the type of killing that is carried out by a man suffering from such a degree of emotional or mental instability that no civilised society would ask him to forfeit his life. No. We are dealing with a gang of men, fully aware of what they are doing, who coldly and calculatedly plan, in every dastardly detail, to rob another human being of his existence. Unlike those acting in the throes of passion, they can foresee the possible consequences of their actions and be deterred by them.
Again, we hear it said " Are we not inviting a situation in which terrorists will hold hostages and threaten to kill them if an execution takes place? " I am ashamed to say that this is an argument in common currency at the present time. Let the House just think of its significance. It means two things. First, it means that we as a community are confessing our inability to enforce our own laws, and not because those laws are unacceptable to the generality of people, which would be understandable. Secondly, it means that we are prepared to be blackmailed by the threats, or possible threats, of a bunch of murdering thugs. Are we prepared to confess our inability to govern to that extent?
We in Northern Ireland know that hon. Members here at Westminster are unable to govern because they are unable to provide personal security for our citizens. I just want them to understand that the necessary implication of the argument with which I am now dealing is that they are now admitting it.
Then there is the martyr theory. I do not propose to waste words on this or on those so bereft of a sense of reality as to espouse it. The House can take it from me—and I know my country—that in the present climate of opinion in Northern Ireland the hanged man would be a martyr to nobody except to a few of his fellow thugs. That I will exchange any day for the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children. So let us hear no more of that theoretical rubbish.
It is said that hanging is ghoulish. Then shoot the murderers, or use whatever ingenuity people still possess to devise a more acceptable form of capital punishment.
Finally, are hon. Members seeing the problem as we do? To us, killing is a daily occurrence. We do not know where it will strike next, but we know that it will strike. We are fighting for our lives, both personal and commercial. Hon. Members here can afford to see terrorism as something that in a greatly diluted form irritates them once in a while. Incidentally, I wish that hon. Members could see the waves of bitter amusement and contempt that sweep over our people when they see the fuss and to-do that the public organs make of some relatively trivial incident that takes place in England.
I hope that when hon. Members cast their vote tonight they will be thinking not just of their peaceful English hamlets but of our bomb-ridden villages and towns. I hope, too, that the intelligence and moral courage that they bring to bear on the problem is rather more than that of the present Home Secretary, who, on his own admission, made disastrous mistakes when fuddling with our affairs. I can think of nobody less fitted to make a pronouncement on terrorism or its cures than he. I pray that the House can do better.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I hesitated to speak in this debate, and I shall try to confine myself to a short speech in view of the wish of others to take part.
I am well aware that all of us approach our task on these occasions with a mixture of personal conviction and personal experience. I am one of the two or three Members of the House upon whose life an assassination attempt has been made. Fortunately for me, I was not in my car at the time, but my family were. I leave the House to imagine the horror of those moments when, after attending a reception at No. 10 Downing Street, I returned to my flat, turned on the television, and, before I saw a picture, heard the announcer say " I can confirm that the bomb which has gone off in Birmingham was at the home of the Minister for Sport."
I had a lot of time, as I travelled the 120 miles back up the motorway, wondering what I would find when I arrived, to contemplate the deep human and theological questions involved in the motion before the House. Shortly afterwards, when the Birmingham bombs exploded, one got a taste of the terrible horror that colleagues representing Ulster constituencies have talked about. One had time again to contemplate the moral questions.
There are two ways to approach these matters. One is the moral justification for the punishments that the State wishes to exact. Secondly, there is the question of their appropriateness and their effectiveness. On the second question, I join those who have paid tribute to the speech by the Home Secretary. It was overwhelming in its conviction and logic.
What has surprised me most about the debate, even after the intervention of a reverend gentleman from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), is the complete lack of any attempt by people who support the motion to justify the proposition from the point of view of morality or from the point of view of theology. The reverend gentleman himself took recourse to quoting Lewis. It would have been more appropriate had he quoted the Bible. I should have thought the Bible a greater source of reference for him.
At the times when one considers these matters, such as the occasion when they were borne upon me, I have to confess that one thinks of one's position as a Christian or in whatever ethical stand one takes. One would have thought that the injunction " Thou shalt not kill " or the injunction
 Vengeance is mine … saith the Lord 
was overriding in an ethical approach to this subject. I agree with those hon. Members who say that it may be easier for those who approach this subject from that standpoint than it is for those who do not. In spite of the experience of my own family and the great distress that it caused, I did not believe that I should change my mind because of that personal experience.
I should like to discuss the effectiveness of the punishment. When I contemplated the result of the explosion at my home, when I saw what happened in the Birmingham bombings three weeks later in which 21 people died—six of them my constituents whose families I visited trying inadequately to give what support I could—and when I visited hospitals where 120 people lay maimed and injured, it was inconceivable to me that the evil men who perpetrated those dastardly crimes were concerned at all by the punishment they were to receive. It was inconceivable that the result of their trial and their punishment would have affected their attitude and their determination to kill and to maim. It was, it seemed to me, in a sense, an irrelevancy.
I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) who said that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—who, I regret, is not in his


place and has not been there for some time—and those like him seek to present the country and this House with a soft option. Seeing in hospital those savagely injured people, who had lost limbs and who had been permanently disabled, I could not believe that it was right for society, meting out punishment, to think that it should differentiate between those who had been killed and those who had been seriously injured and maimed for life as a result of the bombings. The conclusion that I arrived at as a result of all this is that violence itself is the great obscenity and that we ought not to do anything, such as providing for a variable death penalty, to detract from violence, whether that violence results in the death of one of our citizens or his or her permanent injury.
I share the concern of so many people—this point was put by the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas)—but there are a great many people in our society who believe that if we try to distinguish between the results of violent action we shall in a most macabre way be detracting from the sole purpose that we all should have in mind, which is to eliminate violence from our society. I have felt that on many occasions, not just on the issue before us but on issues as insignificant, some hon. Member may feel, as football hooliganism which, I regret to say, has resulted in deaths, as I know from previous ministerial experience.
The only relevant question in the debate is whether evil men would carry out these gigantic crimes, which are beyond most people's comprehension, if the sentence that were to be passed upon them were different. I cannot believe that they would not and I cannot believe that it is right for the State to resort to judicial violence or judicial killing. By so doing, it unfortunately would underline to some people the righteousness of their evil causes. We have to condemn all violence and killings, and that includes violence, killings and obscenities by the State as well as by organisations determined to destroy the State.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr.

Howell) about the need to justify with reason the point of view that one may hold about the way in which the vote on this motion should go. It is a matter of personal conscience, experience and judgment as well as of national importance.
I have three reasons for wishing to see the reintroduction of capital punishment for certain kinds of murder. The first is that the alternative sentence available for murder is in many cases hopelessly and dangerously inadequate. The second is one that I believe to be held in common by the greater part of the British public. I have the liveliest fear that without capital punishment the appalling rise in the use of guns by professional criminals will not stop but will continue. Thirdly, without capital punishment the need for an armed police force in Britain will be inevitable.

Mr. John Gorst: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that without capital punishment we shall see not only an increase in the use of firearms by criminals but an increase in the use of firearms by the police? That form of capital punishment might replace the judicial form that so many people dislike.

Mr. Gardner: That is a danger that recognise. Few hon. Members would dissent from the proposition that murder is the gravest of all crimes. As such, murder deserves the gravest of all punishments. I do not accept any opposition to the proposition that the gravest of all punishments is the death penalty. If that punishment is removed—as indeed we have removed it—the only punishment left to discourage the armed criminal, the only barrier of fear against murder, is what is called life imprisonment. That term is wholly deceptive. It does not mean, nor is it intended to mean, what it says.
If a person is described as having been sent to prison for life, most people say that that entails only nine years inside and that the remainder of the time is spent on licence. In England and Wales between 1969 and 1978 most of those released from prison after a sentence of life imprisonment were released on or before the ninth year of their term.
I seriously submit—removing from that submission any element of emotion—that the prospect of release from so-called


life imprisonment for all types of murder can only give hope, if not encouragement, to the ruthless killer.
There is a more serious anomaly about life imprisonment as a punishment for murder. If a defendant pleads guilty to murder, he may remain in prison for as long as someone who pleads guilty to manslaughter. In the case of life imprisonment it is a mandatory sentence. It can mean that the person may be released after a short period. However, in the case of manslaughter the sentence is determined at the discretion of the trial judge and a person may remain in prison for the total period specified by him.
As the Home Secretary and other hon. Members have said, statistics are not of much assistance. If the Devil can cite the scriptures for his purpose, I hope that others with better intentions may cite statistics.
There are no statistics dealing with what happens in the mind of a man when he considers murdering someone. No one can say how many people today are alive because there was capital punishment in the past; nor can anyone say how many people have died, or are likely to die, because there is no capital punishment now. However, I submit that there is no possibility of doubt that there are now more criminals carrying guns in the course of their crimes than ever before.
A gun that was fired in the streets of London in the 1950s would have been a rare and sensational happening. In 1976 and 1977 guns were fired in London streets on about 96 occasions. The police expressed a determination to meet firearms with firearms. It is believed that we now have one in 10 policemen in the county areas and one in five policemen in the metropolitan areas trained to use guns. Nor is there any doubt that, within the comparatively slow rise in the total of serious crimes, crimes of violence against the person have been escalating. In 1969 it was 37·8 per 1,000 and last year it was 82·2 per 1,000
I know that I shall carry the House in the belief that the highest function of the criminal law is to ensure that people are protected from crime. I want to ensure that they receive the maximum protection, and I believe that the reintroduction of capital punishment will give them that. I want to ensure the maximum discourage-

ment to the criminal who carries a gun. Again, I believe that the introduction of capital punishment will achieve that.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing for a reintroduction of the categorisation of murder that we saw in the Homicide Act 1957, which was a colossal failure because of the enormous difficulty of drawing a distinction between various graduations of heinous crimes, or whether he is arguing for capital punishment to extend over the whole calendar of murder. The hon. and learned Gentleman owes a duty to the House to let us know what he thinks.

Mr. Gardner: I am seeking to persuade the House that the broad terms of the motion, namely, that capital punishment should be reintroduced and be made available to the courts as a punishment, should be considered as a principle. There are difficulties. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) throws up his hands. He asked the question, and perhaps he would like to listen to the answer. My answer is that this is an important principle. I concede that there are formidable difficulties that will follow upon the acceptance of the principle, but that is no reason for rejecting the principle. This is not merely a personal conviction. The figures are available. When we had capital punishment, we did not have gunmen on our streets. When we had capital punishment, we could boast of an unarmed police force.
Now that there is no capital punishment, there must be an importance nexus. In the absence of capital punishment, we must admit that unless we find a solution shortly we shall have to accept an armed police force. The solution to the problem lies in the reintroduction of capital punishment. For that reason I support the motion and ask that the House should also support it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I shall devote my remarks to the subject of terrorism.
When I was 17 I found myself in Palestine. From there I went to Jordan and Cyprus. I was involved in the Arab-Israeli struggles. I even took a trip to Vietnam when it was difficult to find out who were the terrorists there. I have


been involved in Northern Ireland from 1968 onwards. I was a Minister in Northern Ireland over the past five years.
I have come to my conclusion after listening to people discussing terrorism. I refer to the history of Ireland. This is where my mind goes back to 1916 and 1922. There was what one might term capital punishment—assassination, a bullet in the back of the head, and judicial hanging. If capital punishment were a deterrent, Ireland today would be the Shangri-La of the West. We know that it is not. It is entirely the opposite. Northern Ireland is a hard, uncompromising place, containing many hard, uncompromising people. I say that as my experience of Northern Ireland has been within the political framework.
I refer to the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). As a result of the figures that he produced and what he said, I thought that he was dangerously misleading or not being quite truthful with the House. He purported to say that murderers were being turned loose on the streets of Northern Ireland. He carefully concealed the fact that those people had been sentenced in the courts and had completed their sentences. I do not know whether his view was that we should return to detention, which is considered by all to be a mistake.
Before I left Northern Ireland I had responsibility for the prison service. Not one of all those who had been sentenced to life imprisonment in Northern Ireland had received a terminal date at that time, in spite of petitions to myself and various Secretaries of State.

Mr. Bradford: My point was that some people who were sentenced for murder in Northern Ireland have been, or will be, released. Therefore, given the record of some who have perpetrated murders after their release, capital punishment is an argument for ultimately deterring all who are guilty of murder.

Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman is close to saying that murderers have been turned out on the streets. The judiciary sentenced such people, but he is not saying what the Executive should do when their sentences are finished. Does he say that we should go back to detention? He carefully avoided that.
I was in Northern Ireland for five years. I have been very close to some of the terrible atrocities that have taken place in Northern Ireland. I have also been involved in the matters of internment, emergency powers, special category prisoners, and the fall of the Executive and the Convention.
I became directly involved with the terrorists when my right hon. Friend invited me to take over the prison service. He asked me, in effect, to set up a completely new prison service, with a new prison officers' association and everything else that went with it. I ask those who are speaking in favour of capital punishment for terrorists to consider whether they would start in the conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland. I had to make regular visits to the prisons. If hon. Members are speaking of capital punishment for terrorists, I ask them to remember that terrorists do not start at 18, or even at 17 or 16 years of age.
I remember going into the young offenders' centre in the Crumlin Road prison, where there were 20 or 30 boys in a classroom. They were sitting there, scrubbed clean, behind their desks. I had forcibly to remind myself why they were there. Some of them were there for the most heinous crimes of murder and bombing. They were terrorists. Are hon. Members arguing that they should be hanged at 14, 15 or 16 years of age? Of course not.
I also visited Armagh prison on a regular basis. Most hon. Members probably know of Armagh prison only because of the Price sisters. The Price sisters, when they were on hunger strike, were very close to death. What would have happened if we had sentenced them to death, or even if we had tried to carry out that sentence? But we are not concerned only with the Price sisters, because there were many other people in that prison.
It has been suggested tonight that Northern Ireland's problem is the IRA, and to a great extent it is, but there are other terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. I need only mention the romper room girls. Some of them were very young. What would hon. Members suggest should be done about them? It has to be remembered that not all of those who are in the Crumlin Road prison or in the Maze prison for committing


dastardly crimes are IRA members. Hon. Members will also recall the recent case of the Shankill butchers, a group of men who were carrying out dastardly murders. These are the problems that continually face Ministers in Northern Ireland.
I was very pleased to hear the speech of the Home Secretary tonight, because the one thing that he does not lack is courage. I have been very pleased to have his backing in some of the fights in which I have been engaged in trying to end special category status in Northern Ireland. His remarks have been very helpful to me. I know that he had to swallow a lot of pride, but he did it with the courage that I would have expected of him. I thank him very much for that.
I referred earlier to my experiences in Palestine as a lad of 17. I served there before the mandate and well after the mandate. I would never have imagined that my experiences in Palestine would have stood me in such good stead. I have been able, in the light of those experiences, to go back to Israel and to talk to the political leaders there, just as I have been able to talk to President Makarios in Cyprus.
When I met Prime Minister Begin I pointed out to him that when I was in Palestine I and the other members of the British forces there would probably have shot him if we could have got him in our sights. I was able to ask him about the events of those days. I purposely asked him what used to happen when we picked up terrorists, tried them, sentenced them to death and carried out the punishment. I know what happened on the streets to the ordinary British soldier at that time. We were turned out in force, armed to the teeth, but that did not stop the retribution that came our way from the terrorists. Many of us were willing to take that risk, and had to take that risk. I asked Mr. Begin " What happened to the terrorist organisations? " and he said " It galvanised them. It got us the recruits that we wanted, and made us more efficient and dedicated to the cause ". In his final phrase he said " Then, again, you were not sentencing our terrorists to death, you were sentencing a lot of your own people, and we decided how many."
I hope that no hon. Member goes into the Lobbies tonight hoping that the

motion will be defeated. I hope that hon. Members go into the various Lobbies on their own convictions. I know of the pressures that are put on Members of Parliament from the various associations. Some of us have had this fight with our associations. We know what public feeling is on this matter, but sometimes we must be leaders.
I sincerely hope that hon. Members who go into the Aye Lobby will not do so hoping that they will be on the losing side. They should be honest with themselves, come clean and show the courage of the Home Secretary. One may get the thanks of one's constituency chairman and others, but such praise and thanks will be nothing compared with the praise and thanks that one will get from the money-raisers, the godfathers, and the planners and recruiters of the various terrorist organisations. Such people would love to see the shadow of the gallows return to the context of the situation in Northern Ireland. They would be absolutely delighted if the motion were carried tonight. Of course, I do not speak only of the IRA. I am talking of INLA, the UVF, the UDA and the Red Hand commandos. We ought not to forget that.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. John Browne: In rising to make my maiden speech, I am filled with a profound sense of honour, excitement and humility. What man or woman can fail to feel a great sense of honour at speaking for the first time in this historic Chamber—the very mother of Parliaments, and a Parliament about which I am still learning to find my way, both politically and physically?
I have been reoriented and guided on many occasions by kind hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have often thought back to the story of the schoolgirl who was asked by one of her mistresses " Where are elephants found? " Shrewd and logical, as all girls are, she replied " Elephants are large and intelligent animals, and as such are rarely if ever lost ".
It is also a great honour to have taken over the mantle of Winchester from Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles, whose name you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have often called with such dignity and, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker has also called with a certain


Welsh melody. In echo, I am sorry that I am able to give only the English version.
In talking to hon. Members from all sides of the House, I am convinced that the read-admiral was loved. He really was much loved by this House. I was given dramatic proof of that the other night when, sitting in the Strangers' Gallery next to him, I noticed the nods, winks and waves coming from all parts of the Floor, like salutes to a gallant and trusted comrade. He was also much loved in Winchester, and will be sadly missed. Perhaps I can best illustrate this by quoting what I was told by a constituent just before the general election, who said to me " John, I cannot imagine Winchester without the admiral. It will be like losing the cathedral." He has always been a good friend and adviser to me, and I hope that with God's help I shall be able to wear the mantle of Winchester with half the distinction of Admiral Morgan-Giles.
It goes without saying that I feel it to be the greatest honour and privilege of my life to be chosen to represent the people of Winchester. It is the ancient Saxon capital of Wessex and of England, and the place where for at least 13 centuries people have been aware of the presence of God. The present cathedral, the third to stand on the site, is 900 years of age. It celebrated its anniversary only last weekend. It is one of the most ancient and majestic cathedrals in the world, with the longest nave in Christendom. It is not only a beautiful standing monument of stone but the focal point of today's entire community in Winchester.
Winchester is a major centre of the Church, education, law and local government. Twenty per cent. of us are involved in agriculture. We have many small businesses, many people are self-employed, there are many light industries and some divisions of major international companies. There are many people serving in the Armed Forces and many retired people living on fixed incomes who, like our housewives, will be watching keenly to see whether the Government's monetary policies are effective in curbing inflation.
Despite the beauty of Winchester, we have in the constituency all the normal problems of today's life. We have unemployment but are lucky in that tourism

tends to absorb many of the unskilled. We have redevelopment problems and a major housing problem in north Andover, where poorly-built London overspill housing is breaking down and causing tremendous suffering to the occupants. However, the people of Winchester look to the Government with hope and confidence that a new dawn of freedom and enterprise is breaking over our country.
I thank you, sincerely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in a Back Benchers' debate, and I speak with a due sense of humility. Speaking in this House that both gives and expects such tremendously high standards of knowledge, political skill and eloquence makes me feel humble, particularly when I know that on many issues I shall be fighting tooth and nail with talented and hardworking right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I take some small comfort in the fact that we are all fellow countrymen, British at least. On some points we may even agree.
I also feel humble in approaching a judgment on the dreadful, crucial and most difficult subject of the death penalty. It is one that arouses strong feelings and deep emotions on all sides, and feelings for which I have great sympathy and understanding. We are talking about taking life in cold blood. I have no individual divine knowledge on the subject. My instinct, however, is that if execution is to be used either for punishment or revenge, I am against the death penalty. If, on the other hand, it is to be a deterrent, I am for it. I feel that it is the Government's prime duty to protect the citizens of this country from both external and internal attack. If the Government fail in their duty, people will begin to take the law into their own hands and civilisation will have taken a major step backwards.
In 1965 an experiment began to determine whether the withdrawal of the death penalty could be achieved without putting the lives of our people at risk unnecessarily. Fourteen years have passed and events now suggest that the death penalty should be reinstated as a deterrent. The key question is that of deterrence. I agree that the statistics are at best inconclusive, but there is evidence in this country of an enormous groundswell of public opinion indicating that the majority feel that the death penalty is a deterrent. I


also believe very strongly that it is a deterrent.
Many people will argue that the death penalty will not deter fanatics. I agree, but at least it will limit their activities. The most conclusive evidence was that stated in opening the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) when he compared the money paid to professional killers in those countries which had the death penalty and in those which did not. There was a considerable differential. That is a calculation based not on being caught but on being caught and killed, and it is conclusive evidence.
It is also interesting to note the strong evidence that fear of certain death acts as a deterrent not only to individuals but to nations. Take the example of the super-Powers. The nuclear deterrent has given us 30 years of relative peace, despite enormous tensions and provocations.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that people had not discussed the moral issues. We should not be hypocritical in looking at this question. The majority of people in our society accept that the death penalty still exists on the statute book for treason. We accept abortion and we accept the taking of one's own life. Attempted suicide is no longer a criminal offence. We still demand that our Armed Forces take life and the soldier may kill his enemy when the man's only apparent crime is that he wears a different uniform. I am convinced that the death penalty is a deterrent to certain cases of killing and other crimes of violence.
As our society already accepts the taking of life in certain circumstances, and the present experiment of abolition has proved inconclusive and has put innocent lives at risk, we should now reconsider the matter. Of course the Secretary of State is right when he says that the death penalty would be extremely difficult to operate. I accept that, but it is the function of leadership to overcome those difficulties. The British people are now crying out to their leaders for protection. If this House continues to ignore these cries, it will do so at great risk of ordinary people taking the law into their own hands. If that happens, this House will be acting neither in the interests nor according to the will of our people.
I hope therefore that right hon. and hon. Members will not only search their own consciences on this matter but will do so in the light of today's appalling crime rates, in the light of our duty to protect our citizens' lives and the cries of the British people for an end to this period of abolition. Innocent lives are at stake not only from premeditated killings but from other crimes of violence. It falls to us to protect our citizens with positive action.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has chosen a fine evening on which to make his maiden speceh—an occasion when we are untrammelled by the normal whipping arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman spoke warmly of his predecessor, he dealt knowledgeably with his constituency, and he told the House that he spoke with humility, as indeed he did. When he came to deal with the subject that is now before the House, he did not speak with that same humility, but he did put his views with clarity and certainty, which perhaps is not true of everybody who speaks in this House. I am sure that we shall hear the hon. Member again. I imagine that it will be some time before we hear him again on the same subject, but one never knows.
This debate is taking place because of a commitment given during the general election campaign, and I do not quarrel with that. I am glad—and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who introduced the debate, agreed with this view—that no commitment was given to hold a referendum on capital punishment. This House must decide the matter on the realities and facts of the situation. It is on that aspect that I most disagree with the hon. Gentleman.
There are two reasons—indeed, there may be more—for the continuing discussion and concern about capital punishment. The first is the feeling that, whatever the direct arguments about a return to capital punishment or its abolition, all that has happened since in terms of the crime rate and other effects flows uniquely from the removal of the death penalty. In other words, it is said that the effect is far greater in terms of society


than the effect on those who commit murder.
I shall return to that aspect a little later, but I believe that, despite the fall in the crime rate last year and, indeed, the year before—and I understand that just before I ceased to occupy the office of Home Secretary the quarterly figures still showed a fall—there has been an uneven rate of incidence of different crimes.
In the last year, possibly because of the run-up to the general election, there have been many misconceptions about the crime rate, but in the vote which faces the House tonight we must deal with the realities of the matter and not with the position as it was considered to be before May.
In the last seven or eight years we have seen the development of terrorism stemming from Northern Ireland. However, before dealing with that matter and other aspects. I believe that we should examine the purpose of this debate.
The motion reads:
 That this House believes that the sentence of capital punishment should again be available to the courts.
I say frankly to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that I do not like that method of proceeding. We both agree that we do not want a referendum to be voted upon by the people of the United Kingdom, but the motion leads one to believe that the hon. Gentleman is asking Members of Parliament to vote as if we are conducting a referendum in this House. He is asking us to express a view about capital punishment without thinking of the consequences. He is saying " Vote for the motion tonight and we can work out the consequences afterwards." He believes that he and other hon. Members can then put forward all the various divisions of punishment, involving all the problems of juries and other considerations.
Many people outside the House have written to me and discussed this subject. Some of them believe that if we vote in favour of this motion tonight, hanging will begin tomorrow morning. They believe that by some alchemy we shall sweep away the last 10 years and that our decision will change things tomorrow. I believe that, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the arguments, that is not the

way in which this House should proceed. The matter is not as easy as the motion would lead us to believe.
We cannot escape from reality. We do not have to wait for reports to put us right in the next month or even a year ahead. It will not be easy. The matter cannot be left until later—it will be too late. Before we vote tonight we should consider the reality of the position, not what we would like it to be. We should not vote for the motion because many outside this place are worried about the matter and want a change. Our duty is to consider the facts first. To his credit, that is what the Home Secretary, as most of us would expect, has done tonight.
I turn to the matter of the return of the death penalty for the non-terrorist crime. Morally, I am against the return of the death penalty, and that is a strong part of my argument. It may be that the non-personal part of my argument is more important in the role that I play tonight. However, I place on record my personal point of view, as a former Home Secretary who might, but for the vagaries of the matter, be on the Government Bench tonight. The penalty for the crime of murder has no discernible influence upon the rate at which murder is committed. Whatever the arguments are about statistics, nothing that has been put to me shows that the death penalty for the crime of murder has a discernible influence.
Murder is a crime apart. Crimes of violence have risen in all the Western world, whether there is a death penalty or not, but murder has risen much less. That is not an objective valuation but a comparison. The incidence of murder fluctuates in an inexplicable way. Recently the newspapers and others have called in aid the work of an American economist turned criminologist called Ehrlich. His arguments have been called upon to prove one matter or another. What interested me about some of his research, which showed the economic influence on his mind, was that he said that a 1 per cent. change in per capita income upwards or a chan in employment 1 per cent. up or down could have a far greater effect on the homicide rate than any change in punishment. That shows the nature of the investigation that he undertook.
An impression has been formed that the increase in the number of murders is due to killings by shooting. That is not


borne out by the evidence. The incidence of killing by shooting and the penalty for that crime are unrelated. An equation has been made about the growth in the use of guns. I no longer have access to the figures, but it is worth considering whether the growth in the use of guns had begun before the abolition of capital punishment. The point is not as simple as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would like to believe.
I have obtained some statistics in regard to policemen. I have a special concern for policemen. Some of their number still live in my house and they will do for some time to come. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred to the sentences on murderers of policemen. Eleven people who are in prison have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of policemen. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that the sentence for such a crime was nine or 10 years. In 1965 there was one murder of a policeman, in 1966 there were three; in 1970, one; in 1971, three; in 1972, one; in 1975, one; and in 1977 there was one such murder. In five cases the judge recommended a minimum detention of 30 years, in one case the recommendation was 25 years, in two cases it was 20 years and in one case the recommendation was for detention for the whole of the natural life. It would be a brave Home Secretary, although it would be within his or her control, who would overthrow those recommendations. Therefore, the impression that the murderer of a policeman serves nine or 10 years and is then released is not the case.
A prisoner who is sentenced to life cannot be released without consultation between the Lord Chief Justice, the Home Secretary and the judge who tried the case if he is available—he often is not available because of the lapse of time. A favourable recommendation from the Parole Board is also required. When the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) talks about the average time served by a prisoner sentenced to life, he does not need a look at the facts of the case—

Mr. Edward Gardner: I did not say " average " I said that most were let out.

Mr. Rees: In that case, I definitely disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I was taking it as the median figure. I suggest that the hon.

and learned Gentleman gets the facts straight about that, although, as has been said more than once today, statistics will get us nowhere in this argument. I imagine that, like the rest of us, the hon. and learned Gentleman will vote independently of what is shown in the statistics.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, of course, has a role with the Police Federation, but what he said is not the case. When I have been round those prisons where prisoners are serving life sentences, I have not found the conditions there to be easy. The atmosphere is not easy. Some of us think the lifetime of a Parliament—a mere five years—to be a long time. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that a 30-year sentence is a very long time. In my view it is a deterrent because the message gets out that it is not all colour television and skittles. Indeed, I have heard it described as inhumane. There we move to a different argument. Is a life sentence more humane than the death penalty?
If I had been in the shoes of the Home Secretary, I should have argued that there was a constancy about the state of murder in England and Wales irrespective of the penalties imposed. Nothing in the data put before me indicated that abolition had any effect on the phenomenon of murder, and this is also true when one considers the breakdown between capital and non-capital murders. But that is not surprising. It is not, as I heard someone say sotto voce earlier today, because of briefs from civil servants in the Home Office. It is not surprising that the present Home Secretary, Lord Carr, Mr. Jenkins, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Butler, Lord Brooke and I, because of the logic of living with the situation on a day-to-day basis and not because we were brainwashed, know where we stand on the argument about capital punishment which has been with us for some years now. We know that we are against it. We are no different from any other Member of either House, but I hope that the views which we have garnered by experience will be taken into account.
Like the Home Secretary, I believe that if this motion were passed there would be tremendous problems with juries both as to their size and composition and as


to their ability to differentiate between different types of murder. We have been through it all before. Any Bill would require very lengthy consideration in Parliament before we arrived at workable legislation.
I cannot fault the Home Secretary in making clear that acceptance of this motion does not mean the reintroduction of capital punishment tomorrow. I know where I stand. I shall vote against the motion. However, a great change has occurred since I first came into this House and listened to the arguments about the abolition of capital punishment advanced by Sydney Silverman and others. We are talking in a different environment because of the development of terrorism, and it is on the aspect of terrorism that I wish to spend the last few minutes of my speech.
I understand when the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) says that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, that 2,000 people have been killed, and that understandably people are concerned. They are concerned from a family point of view. But it is important to recognise that we have to identify the nature of the terrorism that this country faces. It is not the middle-class Bader Meinhoff of Germany. It is not the curiously named Croce Rossa of Italy. It is not the PLO. Ours is Irish terrorism, and in a general sense we have lived with it for centuries. The anniversary of the Metropolitan Police is being celebrated this year. Sir Robert Peel set it up in the image of the Royal Irish Constabulary which he had set up 10 years before.
Suppression of the Irish defence of the Protestant religion were two main reasons for the existence of the first Regular Army in this country. The problem is not new, but it shows itself in a different way in that divided part of the United Kingdom. The hon. Members for Belfast, North and Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) may not like what I say, but Northern Ireland is a divided Province, where conscription could not be undertaken in the Second World War because one-third of the population did not support this country. The problem is different, even though it has been with us for a long time.
We are faced with murders and bombings, the Provisional IRA, the Official IRA, the Irish Republican Socialist Party and various para-military groups. I found when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that some curious people associate with para-military groups. When there is trouble, the paramilitary groups on both sides do not represent only a small part of each community. They touch a raw nerve. There is a yawning gap between the two sides. When I was in Northern Ireland I learnt that a number of Catholics vote Unionist. I did not believe it previously, but it must be true. However, it is a divided community.
When talking about stopping terrorism, we must realise that it is not Left-wing politics which are involved but Rightwing politics. The terrorists get their money from bank robberies and from the United States. One way to stop terrorism in Northern Ireland would be to stop the flow of money from Boston, New York and Chicago. That would be far more important than would making the mistake of returning to capital punishment
I have had work done on the statistics, and they provide an answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, North, who assumed that the violence had been taking place in Northern Ireland only since the United Kingdom took over the governance of the Province. In a population of 1½ million, the number of murders in 1971 was 123. In 1972 the figure was 376. The British Government had not then taken over the governance of the Province in the sense that they have now.
The murders, bombings and killings were taking place before the present Home Secretary took over as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There were 200 murders in Northern Ireland in 1973, when capital punishment still existed. It was on the statute book and had not been abolished in Northern Ireland. Its presence did not prevent murders on the scale that I have outlined. [HON. MEMBERS: " It was not used."] It was not used by a Unionist Government.
When the present Home Secretary introduced legislation after taking over as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he left capital punishment in his first Bill. Later, a Protestant killed a British soldier, and if that man had been hanged the Army would not have been able to


hold East Belfast and parts of West Belfast that evening. The right hon. Gentleman was then faced with the case of a Catholic who had killed a soldier. When the right hon. Gentleman realised that because of what would happen in the Province he could not allow those men to be hanged, capital punishment in Northern Ireland was abolished.
We do not have to look to the future. We do not have to wait to consider the problems of Northern Ireland in this respect. It is no good arguing that the House should pass the motion and consider later what to do about Northern Ireland. I know that, the Home Secretary knows that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) knows that, other hon. Members know that and the people of Northern Ireland know that. The death penalty is not the answer to the problems of murder in Northern Ireland.
I set up an inquiry, so let us not have another. Let not the Secretary of State have to do it today. I have the Gardiner report here, and I shall read a short passage from it. If some hon. Members are not enamoured of the liberal image of Lord Gardiner, let them note who else was on the committee. This is what that inquiry reported to me:
 We are only concerned with the position in Northern Ireland. Experience in all parts of Ireland has shown that the use of capital punishment tends to lead sections of the public to regard those executed as martrys.
One can still buy long-playing records in Belfast, round about the university, lauding those who were " topped " by the British in the 1870s and 1880s. Their names live on even to today.
The report continued:
 We believe that the reintroduction of capital punishment would be likely to cost the lives of soldiers, police and civilians.

Mr. Marlow: Let us try it and see.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman says " Try it." May I say to him that that is a typical English remark and it illustrates the problems that have been there for hundreds of years. We are not in this place to " try it ". We are in this place to face the reality of the situation, and the reality is that a return to the death penalty in Northern Ireland would be a grave error of judgment.
The Home Secretary spoke about the Diplock courts, and I wish to say a word about that. He will remember that in 1972–73 he was good enough to consult me, then in Opposition, about the changes then taking place—not on the basis of any decision by me but about what was going on. He will remember the long talks with lawyers and others about the setting up of the Diplock courts and the ending of the Special Powers Act. I had discussions with the parties in this House about what should be done.
There is no way in Northern Ireland by which anybody could be sentenced to death by a non-jury court, and, in a typically Irish fashion, there is no way by which anybody would accept the decision of a jury in Northern Ireland on this matter. The division in the community is such that no appeal court—no appeal court in the world, if the matter could go there—would accept a decision of a jury in Northern Ireland on this matter.
It might therefore be said that we are in some sense lumbered. There is a sense in which that is the right word. But turning to what is proposed in the motion cannot be the way forward in Northern Ireland. The way forward lies in the strengthening of the police methods, which is being done, through the courts and through appropriate sentences. I noted what was said on this matter by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. I have no time to go into that now, but I must say that he did not understand the nature of the sentencing, and if he has a word with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) he will know about those who will remain in prison for a very long time yet, without political status.
When I look back on my time, I believe that the ending of detention was the most sensible thing that I did, but if there was one thing that went with it it was the ending of political status. I know about these things because I had two meetings when I was in Opposition, and when I was Secretary of State I had reports and information in other ways. The truth is that the IRA would vote for a return to capital punishment tonight. The men of the IRA hate the imprisonment. All they ever talk about are amnesties and the certainty that their


boys will get out, but they will not. They will serve the sentences which the courts have imposed upon them.
One hon. Member talked almost as though he wanted a return to internment. I shall tell the House what the situation was. We had about 1,000 people interned, and if we had not had a rotation system we could have had 10,000 interned. The more one interns, the more one has to intern others. The only way is through the courts.
I spoke first of capital punishment in the general sense. I say that it would be an error of judgment to go back to capital punishment. In Northern Ireland it would not be just an error of judgment from which we could return in a year or two when we had learnt the error of our ways. In my view, if we turn to capital punishment in Northern Ireland we can forget the political development, poor as it has been over these seven or eight years. It will be the end, and just as 1916 took us in a direction that nobody believed possible, so, if we do it tonight, the political direction in Northern Ireland will go in a way which none of us should contemplate.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. George Gardiner: It is with some humility that I rise to close the debate on this subject after the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was so recently Home Secretary. This is a debate on a Back-Bench motion. It is therefore appropriate that one of the sponsors of the motion should try to reply to some of the points that have been raised. I am happy to associate myself entirely with the compliments paid by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on his maiden speech. As my hon. Friend began speaking, a certain vision appeared before my eyes of what Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles's contribution to this debate might have been. Apart from such conjecture, the admiral, if he had been in the Gallery, would certainly have been proud of the maiden contribution of his successor.
If this debate has established one thing, it is that neither side of this argument can claim to have a monopoly of truth or a monopoly of moral concern. The

right hon. Member for Leeds, South says that he does not like the method that has been adopted for debating the issue on this occasion. I do not know what other method he would have liked to see us use. Since no hon. Member coming high in the ballot for Private Members' Bills chose this as his subject, it was only appropriate that the Government should provide time for a debate, as promised in the Conservative election manifesto. It was only appropriate also that the motion should have arisen from the Back Benches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) went to some trouble to explain why we have sought a form of words that defines the principle at stake. There is no point in getting bogged down in the detail or in discussing amendments relating to detail unless there is a majority in the House of Commons in favour, in principle, of proceeding further on this matter. The discussion has rightly concentrated on those who have suffered death at the hands of others, who set about their crimes, frequently robbery, armed with guns, and those who have been the victims of terrorists.
Some common ground has been established in the course of the debate. No one has been arguing for the death sentence for crimes of passion. References that were made to Ruth Ellis are utterly irrelevant to the debate. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that this is not necessarily a debate or a vote on the question of hanging. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for making it clear in his remarks that should it be the wish of the House to carry this motion and to see some legislation, he would be willing to use the intervening period to examine further alternative forms of execution.
The debate has not concentrated very much on—indeed, it has barely featured—what might be called the retributive argument in favour of the death penalty, although the argument is frequently put by the population at large. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) mentioned it but was certainly not advocating it. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) dealt with the concept of


punishment in society which, again, is a different concept from retribution itself.
But far more of the arguments, and certainly those from the hon. Members who accept or agree with the motion that I am advocating, have concentrated on the question of deterrence. Our argument on that score is not weakened in the least by the lack of tidy statistics. The excellent background paper prepared by the House of Commons Library research division includes at the start the sentence warning us:
 It is hoped that the statistics that are included will be helpful both to Members arguing for and to Members arguing against the restoration of capital punishment in this country.
That is an apt comment on the use of statistics.
However, some statistics have not been refuted. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds reminded the House how, before the abolition of capital punishment, 43 armed robberies were committed in London in the year 1963. In 1977 that figure increased to 935, and in the current year it is almost certain to exceed 1,000.
Is it credible to argue that all those criminals would have gone out armed if the death penalty had not been abolished? Is it credible to argue that none of their victims would have been affected in any way if the law on this had been different? That argument flies in the face of all logic and common sense, and we on this side are totally unable to accept it.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) raised the question of morality in this issue. I was very moved by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Some years ago moral arguments were frequently employed in this Chamber. That happens far less often now, and perhaps there is a certain shame or reticence on the part of many in seeking to offer moral justification for the argument that they are putting.
I shall try to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question by answering another that was asked by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and others, and which is frequently put. It is " What do you say to the danger that mistakes might be made? " We know that in the past

some mistakes have been made and that some innocent men were hanged. Yes, there was the Timothy Evans case, but in our approach to the subject that is a life that has to be put in one side of the scales when we are evaluating this question—[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] I am trying to put a moral point and I should be most grateful if Labour Members were prepared to hear me out. Timothy Evans has to be put on one side of the scales, but there are lives that we are convinced have to be put on the other side as well if we are to reach a judgment.
We ask ourselves how many other innocent people, who found themselves the victims of killers, lost their lives because there was insufficient deterrent to those who took them. Those victims are innocent, too, and we must consider them. That is the moral question and the moral balance that many of us find ourselves having to strike.
I greatly envy the certainty of those hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, South who seem able to assert that the existence of capital punishment would not have saved even one life. I wish that I could assert that with equal certainty or that I could assert with certainty that lives would have been saved if the death sentence were still with us.
On the statistics offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I am convinced that several men and women and at least one child died largely as a result of the removal of that deterrent.
When the life of Timothy Evans is mentioned, I accept the moral argument. On the other side of the scale I claim the right to mention the life of Carl Bridgewater, the newspaper boy who was murdered when he surprised burglars in the commission of their crime.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South quoted figures and sought to extol the virtue of the 30-year sentence. He used that argument to counter the public apprehension about the early release of many killers from gaol. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the official figures which show that between 1969 and 1978 a total of 213 murderers were released from gaol, having served nine years or less, and 348 were released after serving 12 years or less.
The right hon. Gentleman made much of terrorist killings. It is incumbent upon us to answer the argument which has been put by many hon. Members—that by reintroducing capital punishment we would make martyrs of terrorists. There is scope for martyrdom now. Why are martyrs not made of those who lose their lives in gun battles with the security forces in Ulster? [HON. MEMBERS: " They are."] We authorise those security forces to shoot in the street and to shoot to kill. Let us not say that there is no killing which is authorised by the State in society today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) posed a question eloquently. He asked what kind of martyr will be created as a result of a trial which shows that a person went up to a front door, knocked on it, brought a father to it and then shot him down in front of his family. What sort of a martyr will such a man be made? How on earth can the mantle of marytrdom settle on such shoulders?
The lesson that we learn from Northern Ireland and from our experience on the mainland is that terrorists, unless they become involved in a shooting match with the security forces, are the only ones whose lives are not at risk.
We have been guilty in the debate of crediting the IRA with more heroism than that movement possesses. The report " Northern Ireland—Future Terrorist Trends " prepared by Major Glover, the director of the intelligence service, was issued by the Ministry of Defence last November. Paragraph 44 of that document states:
 The principle that the terrorist must have a safe method of escape is the dominant feature of Provisional IRA tactics. The Provisional IRA very seldom plan operations that involve high risk. If in doubt they abort the mission. Shooting tactics are mainly conducted on the shoot and scoot principle.
In conclusion paragraph 72 states:
 The desire to save their own skins dominates Provisional IRA tactics.
Let us have less talk of the eagerness of these people to seek martyrdom.
The debate has raised the question of our role as Members of Parliament, as representatives, and of how our own feelings and judgment relate to the views of those whom we represent. The view

has been expressed that we should be leading opinion. That view was advanced 14 years ago. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) quoted Sydney Silverman extremely effectively—his hope that by abolishing capital punishment he was lighting a small candle. That lead was given 14 years ago, but the fact is that public opinion most certainly has not followed. If anything, it has moved in the opposite direction.
When I am asked by Labour Members how I justify the motion, they claim that the onus of proof is upon those who advocate change. I submit that the onus of proof is on them to justify how the House can vote contrary to the views of about 80 per cent. of the population. Theirs is the onus, not ours.
Repeated opinion polls have revealed that about 80 per cent. of our population want the return of the death penalty. Those polls have not necessarily been taken in the aftermath of an outrage. Whatever the outcome of the Division in a few minutes' time, this issue will not go away. It will not go away so long as 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the populace believe that capital punishment should be restored.
I recognise that many hon. Members feel that they are on something of a dilemma. On the one hand there is their own distaste for or proclaimed objection to capital punishment, and on the other hand there is their recognition of the overwhelming view of either their own constituents or the nation generally. Such hon. Members must be asking themselves, " What is the honourable course to take?" I submit that the honourable course for hon. Members who are torn in that way is to abstain. I shall explain why.
If the motion is carried, its effect will be to permit the introduction of a Bill and a full debate on it. I listened with great interest to the most eloquent speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He pointed to all the difficulties and anomalies that could arise. However, difficulties and anomalies arise from all legislation that is presented to the House. It is our job to weigh the difficulties, to sort them out and to devise definitions to ensure that anomalies do not arise.
There is no doubt about the wish of the overwhelming majority of the citi-


zees of Great Britain. They are surrounded by increasing violence and threatened by the growing indifference to human life that is shown at almost every level of criminal society. They have concluded over a period that restoring the death penalty would give them added protection. That majority view of the people is no less sincere and no less valid than our own. Tonight they look to us in Parliament to speak for them and at least to allow a Bill to be introduced whose provisions can be tested in debate. Let

us not fail them. Let us not as a House set our face against the people whom we have the honour to represent. Instead, let us admit the means of reconciling their view with the majority of hon. Members. That is the opportunity tonight, and let us face it.

Question put,

That this House believes that the sentence of capital punishment should again be available to the courts.

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 362.

Division No. 70]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Luce, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Faith, Mrs Sheila
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Fell, Anthony
McCusker, H.


Arnold, Tom
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macfarlane, Neil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mackay, John (Argyll)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Banks, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McQuade, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marland, Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter
Marlow, Antony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Mather, Carol


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Blackburn, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bowden, Andrew
Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mayhew, Patrick


Bradford, Rev. R.
Grieve, Percy
Mellor, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Brinton, Timothy
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hastings, Stephen
Molyneaux, James


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Monro, Hector


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawksley, Warren
Moore, John


Burden, F. A.
Heddle, John
Morgan, Geraint


Butcher, John
Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hill, James
Murphy, Christopher


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Myles, David


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Neale, Gerrard


Churchill, W.S.
Hooson, Tom
Neubert, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Clark, William (Croydon South)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Osborn, John


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cope, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Paisley, Rev Ian


Corrie, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Parris, Matthew


Cranborne, Viscount
Kilfedder, James A.
Pawsey, James


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Sir Ian


Crouch, David
King, Rt Hon Tom
Pink, R. Bonner


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pollock, Alexander


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill
Porter, George


Dover, Denshore
Lang, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dunlop, John
Latham, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Durant, Tony
Le Merchant, Spencer
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eggar, Timothy
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)




Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wakeham, John


Rost, Peter
Stanley, John
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stevens, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Waller, Gary


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Stokes, John
Watson, John


Shersby, Michael
Tebbit, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Silvester, Fred
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'rd&amp;Stev'nage)


Sims, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Whitney, Raymond


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thompson, Donald
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Thornton, George
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Speed, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


Spence, John
Trotter, Neville
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Spriggs, Leslie
Viggers, Peter
Dr. Alan Glyn and


Sproat, Ian
Waddington, David
Sir Nicholas Bonsor.


Stainton, Keith






NOES


Abse, Leo
Cowans, Harry
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Adams, Allen
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Freud, Clement


Alison, Michael
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Allaun, Frank
Crowther, J. S.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Alton, David
Cryer, Bob
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cunliffe, Lawrence
George, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Davies, E. Hudson (Caerphilly)
Gourley, Harry


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gow, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Graham, Ted


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John (Islington C)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Beith, A. J.
Dempsey, James
Grist, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dewar, Donald
Gummer, John [...]elwyn


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dixon, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Dobson, Frank
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Best, Keith
Dormand, J. D.
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Dorrell, Stephen
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Body, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Haselhurst, Alan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dubs, Alfred
Hayhoe, Barney


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Duffy, A.E. P.
Haynes, David


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dykes, Hugh
Heffer, Eric S.


Britten, Leon
Ead[...]e, Alex
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eastham, Ken
Higgins, Terence L.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Elliott, Sir William
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Homewood, William


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hooley, Frank


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
English, Michael
Horam, John


Buck, Antony
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Evans, John (Newton)
Howells, Geraint


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ewing, Harry
Huckfield, Les


Campbell, Ian
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Canavan, Dennis
Field, Frank
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cant, R. B.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fitch, Alan
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fitt, Gerard
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Carmichael, Neil
Flannery, Martin
Janner, Hon Greville


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Channon, Paul
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
John, Brynmor


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Forman, Nigel
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Cohen, Stanley
Forrester, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Coleman, Donald
Foster, Derek
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Foulkes, George
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cook, Robin F.
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith







Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Newens, Stanley
Soley, Clive


Kerr, Russell
Newton, Tony
Spearing, Nigel


Kinnock, Neil
Oakes, Gordon
Squire, Robin


Knox, David
Ogden, Eric
Stallard, A. W.


Lambie, David
O'Halloran, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lamborn, Harry
O'Neill, Martin
Steen, Anthony


Lamond, James
Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart, David


Lamont, Norman
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Leighton, Ronald
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Park, George
Straw, Jack


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Parker, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parry, Robert
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Patten, John (Oxford)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lyell, Nicholas
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


McCartney, Hugh
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tilley, John


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tinn, James


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


McKelvey, William
Prior, Rt Hon James
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maclennan, Robert
Race, Reg
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Radice, Giles
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Raison, Timothy
Waldegrave, Hon William


McNally, Thomas
Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNamara, Kevin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


McWilliam, John
Renton, Tim
Walters, Dennis


Madel, David
Rhodes James, Robert
Watkins, David


Magee, Bryan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weetch, Ken


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wellbeloved, James


Major, John
Rifkind, Malcolm
Welsh, Michael


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Wheeler, John


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow,Shettles'n)
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robertson, George
White, James (Glasgow, Poliok)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rooker, J. W.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Roper, John
Whitlock, William


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wickenden, Keith


Maxton, John
Rossi, Hugh
Wigley, Dafydd


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Ted
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Meacher, Michael
Royle, Sir Anthony
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mikardo, Ian
St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott, Nicholas
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Sever, John
Winnick, David


Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Sheerman, Barry
Woodall, Alec


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Short, Mrs Renée
Wright, Miss Sheila


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Morton, George
Silverman, Julius



Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk and


Nelson, Anthony
Snape, Peter
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Question accordingly negatived.

UNEMPLOYMENT, SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY BENEFIT

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is noise in the House. Because the business is timed, the debate will be timed from the moment that I call the Minister.

10.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 5 July, be approved.
The purpose of these regulations is to limit the entitlement of students to receive unemployment benefit in the short Christmas and Easter vacations. It is a matter of justice that we should put right in this House an unintended change in unemployment benefit entitlement resulting from the 1975 Social Security Act. Students are different from other claimants for many weeks of a year simply because in that year they are studying for 30 weeks or more.
Since the 1975 Act became law, students have been treated differently from others who are unemployed. It is an accident of the Act that that has arisen. Until the 1975 Social Security Act came into force in 1977, only 10 to 12 per cent. of students who registered for employment in their vacations qualified for unemployment benefit. These were mainly mature students who had worked for a sufficient period to satisfy the contribution conditions for benefit.
Under the 1975 Act, however, contributions are no longer related to the number of weeks worked but to a person's level of earning. The result is that someone whose earnings are above the weekly lower earnings limit for contribution purposes can satisfy the first contribution condition for unemployment benefit—namely, the payment of contributions on earnings in any one year of at least 25 times the weekly lower earnings limit—and can do that much more quickly than previously.
The second contribution condition requires a person to have paid or to have been credited contributions on earnings of at least 50 times the weekly lower earnings limit for the relevant tax year—

that is, the tax year preceding the calendar year in which the period of interruption of employment begins. Starting credits have always been given to benefit young persons who have entered the employment field and have fallen sick or become unemployed before satisfying this second contribution condition.
These starting credits, which existed before the 1975 Act, have been made much more generous under that Act. Therefore, the result is that a student who leaves school in the summer can satisfy the first contribution condition by working for 9 or 10 weeks before going on to university. He can then, with the help of the starting credits to enable him to satisfy the second contribution condition, qualify for unemployment benefit in his first Christmas vacation.
The House will be aware that periods of unemployment which are not separated by more than 13 weeks link up to form one period of interruption of employment for benefit purposes. Because university vacations are less than 13 weeks apart, a student with only those 9 or 10 weeks at work could go on receiving unemployment benefit in each vacation for almost the duration of the course if it were a three-year course. This would happen because each of his claims would be determined by reference back to the same contribution year in which he received the benefit of the starting credits that are intended to help the unemployed earner get on his way.
The combination of circumstances can put students in a much more favourable position than the general group of unemployed earners. Those unemployed earners rarely have regular and successive periods of unemployment falling within the 13-week periods. They can receive only the initial help from starting credits. After that, they have to satisfy the second condition in the normal way each time. Therefore, there is a special position in which students have an easier entitlement to unemployment benefit. This was not recognised when we discussed the 1975 legislation. The changes made under that Act were to help low earners achieve the contribution tests because the new earnings test, based on average earnings and brought in under the 1975 Act, would have been a much stiffer test than before and impossible for those on low earnings.
The Labour Government recognised the position and twice tried to remedy the situation. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) discussed the first proposal, which was to withdraw completely a student's entitlement to benefit on these short vacations. This was unanimously rejected by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in 1977 as being " too blunt an instrument ".
The then Government came up with a second proposal, which was to require students to have paid contributions on earnings of at least 50 times the weekly lower earnings limit, now at £19·50, in the relevant tax year or the tax year immediately before. This proposal was supported by some members of the National Insurance Advisory Committee as fair and proper, but a majority of that committee considered the regulations wrong in principle.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Minister say how many members of that committee felt it was right in principle and how many felt it was wrong?

Mrs. Chalker: There were two in favour and six against.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West on 30 April last year said that in view of the committee's recommendations the Government would not proceed with the regulations, but he added that they still considered it important in principle that students should not have such easy access to unemployment benefit. He said that the Government would be considering whether the second set of regulations or similar regulations should be introduced for the 1979–80 academic year.
The regulations which we are proposing tonight are identical to those which the Labour Government put to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. We share our precedessors' view that students have an unintended and unfair advantage over other contributors. This is due to the fact that they can retain the benefit of starting credits in order to receive benefit over a prolonged period and because the number of weeks that a student is available for work in the Christmas and Easter vacations is so short that he is unlikely to find work unless he had secured a job before the vacation began. Thus, employment at these times is almost a

certainty rather than an insurable risk, and the whole of the principle on which we work is based on insurable risk.
The additional first condition which the regulations will impose on students—namely, the payment of contributions on earnings of at least 50 times the lower earnings limit, representing earnings of £750 in 1977–78 terms or £650 in 1976–77 terms—is one which could be satisfied by somebody on average earnings who had worked for about two and a half months in the relevant year. Once the special condition had been met, it would not have to be satisfied again, although the student who failed to satisfy the test when he first claimed benefit might do so subsequently by virtue of earnings in a later tax year. Thus mature students, who have always been able to claim unemployment benefit in their vacations would normally satisfy the special condition, but it would be unusual for a student who had gone straight from school to university to do so.
The additional condition will not apply during the long summer vacation, and student claimants then will be subject to the same rules as anyone else. The number of students who will be affected by the regulations is not large. At present, about 30,000 students qualify for unemployment benefit in each short vacation, and it is estimated that about 6,000 of them are mature students, most of whom will still be quite able to qualify for benefit at these times. The saving in public expenditure resulting from the regulation is relatively small and is estimated to be about £4 million a year.
In proposing these regulations, we are seeeking to put right something which happened which we in this House did not intend to happen. From what they said in previous debates on this issue, I know that the Opposition agree.
The regulations themselves amend the principal regulations by inserting after regulation 19 a new regulation 20. Regulation 1 is formal and includes provision for the regulations to come into operation on the day on which they are made. Regulation 2 inserts the new regulation 20 into the principal regulations. This, in paragraph (1), describes the category of persons in respect of whom an additional condition for receipt of unemployment benefit is imposed, and in paragraph (2) it sets out the additional condition


whereby a person who comes within the prescribed category is required to have obtained contributions based on a minimum level of earnings in the tax years to which the paragraph refers. Paragraph (3) provides for students in cases where the earliest of the two tax years referred to in paragraph (2) is the one ending in 1975, to meet either the condition in paragraph (2) or an alternative condition.
Paragraph (4) provides for a student, in cases where both the tax years referred to in paragraph (2) fall before the tax year ending in April 1976, to meet the alternative conditions referred to in paragraph (3). Paragraph (5) provides that the additional condition applies only in respect of days between the beginning of the first term starting after 31 August in any one year and the end of the last term finishing before 31 August in the following year, so that the additional condition will not apply in respect of days falling within the long summer vacation. Paragraph (6) provides that once the additional condition has been satisfied, it does not have to be satisfied again in respect of any future claims for unemployment benefit. Paragraph (7) defines the benefit year for the purpose of the regulations.
Finally, let me leave the House in no doubt about our attitude to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. We value the advice which it gave and which it continues to give on national insurance matters. We have not taken the decision to disregard its majority view on the student regulations lightly. I accept its view that it would have been much better if the special position of students had been recognised in 1975, when the new entitlement conditions were being considered. In that case, this situation would never have been allowed to develop. However, it was allowed to develop, and we have a specific statutory power in section 20(3) of the Social Security Act 1975 to make amends.
There seems to be a firm measure of agreement that a student who may be able to get unemployment benefit almost automatically at regular intervals over a period of three or four years should be required to demonstrate a reasonable attachment to the employment field. The regulations require the student to do that. Therefore, I recommend to the House that the regulations be approved in order

that those affected can have due warning before the new rules take effect in the 1979–80 academic year.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I shall make two preliminary points. Labour Members believe that student support should be in the form of a grant. I believe that there can be no argument about that. Student grants are insufficient for many students. There are problems about parental incomes, and the difficulties force students to seek every opportunity that they can to increase their income.
I shall make a comment not out of any churlishness but because it is relevant to what the Minister said, to what I have to say and to what my hon. Friends will say later. The Opposition chose to have the debate on the Floor of the House. It could have been taken in Committee without any great coverage of the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made the decision to have the debate on the Floor of the House, notwithstanding the actions of the previous Government.
The Minister is right when she says that the issue of the regulations has passed backwards and forwards between the DHSS and the National Insurance Advisory Committee on more than one occasion in the last two years. In 1977 and 1978 the previous Labour Government did not proceed with the regulations. It is inaccurate to say that we dropped them. There is a distinction: they were not proceeded with. If the chicken has come home to roost, we have at least allowed the matter to be fully debated on the Floor of the House.
I suspect that the Ministers on taking office at the DHSS sought first to implement the measures that could be brought forward to reduce public expenditure. This measure is an easy one to bring forward. The regulations were there in draft form and the NIAC report was there.
The Minister spoke of the figure of £4 million as the saving that will be made. That is at variance with the figures estimated by the National Union of Students. It tells me that the saving in public expenditure will be closer to £10½ million. I am not sure whether there is a difference in the basis of the estimation.


The union informs me that 100,000 students will be affected by the regulations.
In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), the Minister pointed out that the NIAC decision was not unanimous but was by a majority of six to two that the regulations should not be made. In paragraph 17 the committee pointed out that
unemployment benefit should be available during the short vacations to those students who have paid their contributions and are available for work (i.e. those who fulfil the conditions of the scheme are entitled to benefit). We are now being asked to approve further regulations which would require students to earn double the amount applied to the rest of contributors in a tax year, in order to satisfy the first contribution condition for unemployment benefit.
Following on that, the committee made an important point that may be relevant to other regulations that come before the House in future. It said that it felt that the matter should be dealt with by altering the original statute, the 1975 Social Security Act. The committee pointed out:
 If there was an oversight when the Act was being drafted we think it is for the Secretary of State to consider whether an amendment to the Act is required. We do not think that this is a matter for the Committee to resolve, by draft regulations.
Has that course of action been considered? The Secretary of State's statement attached to the NIAC report makes no mention of whether that recommendation was considered. I ask that question not only in respect of the regulations before us but also in respect of future regulations, particularly those covering disabled housewives, whose case is still with the committee. There may be a case for amending the original Act rather than bringing in regulations.
When the committee says that the original Act ought to be changed, by what criteria do the Government decide to bring forward regulations instead? The Government may get a reasonably easy ride on the regulations before us, but there may not be the same acquiescence on other regulations.
I should also like to ask about the position of mature students, which is glossed over in the Secretary of State's report, as it was in the Minister's speech. It is said that mature students, in general,

will be safeguarded. The Minister said that " most " mature students would be OK as a result of the regulations. Clearly, some mature students will be caught by the regulations.
I ask the Minister to make sure that in marginal cases where discretion is left to officers of the Department they should err on the side of making sure that mature students are not discriminated against in a way that was not intended by the regulations, the previous Government or the present Government.
There are borderline cases, and it would be grossly unfair if mature students, perhaps with a family and a mortgage and perhaps taking two or three part-time jobs, which can cause all sorts of problems with national insurance contributions and the operation of the tax year, who have been encouraged to start full-time education late in life were discriminated against after taking the decision to become full-time students. I hope that the Minister will write to me about that problem if she cannot deal with it tonight.
A press release on the regulations was put out by the Department on 5 July. It said:
 The Regulations will not affect supplementary benefit, which will remain available to students in the short holidays to meet needs (e.g. for rent) not covered by the vacation grant.
That is rather misleading because rent needs are not covered by the vacation grant. Full supplementary benefit is normally paid only to students who stay in their flats over the vacation. If a student returns home at, say, Christmas but still has to pay the rent on his flat, he is allowed only £2 a week towards it, irrespective of how much rent he has to pay to hold the flat. A press release saying that the regulations will not affect payments and specifically citing the example of rent is misleading for students.
My final point concerns the 13-week rule. Injustices are caused by the operation of that rule and I should like to know whether the Department is considering a relaxation of some aspects, particularly as it covers those who fall ill at the end of a year and make an unsuccessful claim for sickness benefit and later, in a new contribution year, make a successful claim. Because of the 13-week rule and their original unsuccessful claim


—and the two claims being linked—the successful claim is made on an old contributions year, with the result that they have less earnings-related sickness benefit or, in the case of a pregnant woman who claims sickness benefit just before the birth of her child, less of the earnings-related part of maternity benefit. This can have an unfair effect upon some people.
I ask the Minister, therefore, whether the new Administration are giving any wider thought to the operation of the 13-week rule. It shoud be remembered that not only students but other sections of the population are affected.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to comment at least on the misleading press release and, second, on the important question of the Government's attitude if they receive a recommendation from the NIAC that the original legislation ought to be amended and that whatever deed they are doing should not be done by regulation.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It always seems to me that students are spoken of as being one of the privileged groups in our society, as in many ways they are, yet when one stops to look at the nitty-gritty of their means of livelihood and how they are expected to keep themselves—and their wives or husbands and families if they are married—their position is seen to be quite the reverse of the ideal which is supposed to be the life of the student at one of our universities, polytechnics or colleges of further education.
The position of students is, in fact, riddled with anomalies. Aged over 18, they are still treated for grant purposes as being dependent on their parents, whether living with their parents or not. Their grants are dependent not upon their own rights as citizens but upon the income of their parents and the extent to which their parents are prepared to meet their liability under the means test.
If students are married and have a family, they are treated for supplementary benefit purposes as being in full employment, but if they ask for family income supplement it is denied to them, and this Government have no intention of alt Bring that regulation.
Now, we are presented with a state of affairs under which if students, following the normal practice of ordinary citizens, make the necessary contributions towards unemployment benefit, they are to be penalised again because their periods of unemployment happen to follow a particular cycle which is dictated not by them but by their academic terms and the academic year.
That, surely, cannot be right. There must come a time when we have a full and proper examination of the position of students in our society—the role that we exepect them to play and the part that we should play in making sure that they can carry out their duties to society just as they may enjoy the privileges which they are alleged to have.
No more is that so than in the present case. It is wrong that students should be singled out in this way in order to make a very mean saving for the national Exchequer. It would have been interesting to have from the Minister a statement of how much as a result of these proposals we should have had to pay our supplementary benefit to students who would normally have collected their unemployment benefit to which they were properly entitled.
I speak as one fortunate enough to have gone to university although for a long time our parents were on supplementary benefit—or the old national assistance as it then was. I assure the House that there is no particular joy for a student to have to go and claim supplementary benefit. It did not happen in my own case, but in my brothers' it did. It is not a happy experience to go down in the Easter and Christmas vacations to claim supplementary benefit because one's grant is no sufficient and one's parents are not in a position to do all that they would want to do for their family.
The whole philosophy of the regulations seems to be based on some happy and carefree idea that when the term ends a student can be up and away to choose from thousands of jobs. Any hon. Member who has a university in his constituency or has students among his family or friends knows that the traditional jobs for students no longer exist. At Christmas and Easter there are no jobs on the post. In the summer there are no jobs in heavy navvying, on the buses or in the canning factories. This


absence of jobs results from the high level of unemployment and the changing nature of many of these forms of employment.
Nevertheless, many students get jobs. Many pay their national insurance contribution, become unemployed and can pass a simple " available for work " test at Easter and Christmas. These regulations will mean that they do not get any form of employment. That is basically wrong in principal and practice and it causes grave injustice. I do not believe that we should allow the regulations to go through without a Division. I hope that my hon. Friends will be moved to join me in the Lobby. We should have done the same if my right hon. Friend the former Minister had gone forward with the regulations. He sensibly took advice and allowed them to lie on the Table, not to be implemented.
We should look very carefully at the position of the mature student. The undertaking has been given that generally mature students will be covered, but that is not good enough. There should be an absolute undertaking in this respect. In many ways the mature student who goes to full-time university having passed through Ruskin college or something similar, getting his A-levels the hard way and with a wife and family to support, is one of the heroes of our society. It takes a lot of courage and moral toughness to be able to give up a reasonably well-paid job and to see one's wife going out to work and one's children not getting the things they would expect in order that one can pursue a course of study at one of the institutions of higher education. Therefore, a statement that they will be " generally " covered is not good enough.
I believed in my innocence that my Labour Government meant to be kind to students, but that perhaps is the degree of naivety that one assumes when one supports the Government of the day. Now that we are in Opposition we should say clearly, as some of us tried to say when we were in Government, that the position of the student in society has not been resolved. Even though the age of adulthood was lowered to 18, are we to treat young men and women of 24 or 25 as children? Are they to be treated differently from the rest of society even though they can fulfil the regulations and conditions laid down in our statutes?

That kind of action would be quite wrong, and we should therefore divide the House.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Reg Race: I am considerably younger than most hon. Members and, therefore, I am not so long in the tooth. I am thin on top, but I can remember vividly my student days. I speak on behalf of the many students who will be affected by these regulations in a way which is damaging to their interests.
It is clear that the introduction of the regulations is a cost-cutting exercise. Let us not make any bones about that. It is part of the analysis of public expenditure by the Government, and it should be resisted on that ground alone. The Government are ignoring the advice given by a quango. Perhaps the Government want to ignore all advice from quangos, but expert advice from the National Insurance Advisory Committee should be listened to with respect. To introduce regulations which are contrary to such advice is a retrograde step.
One of the effects of the regulations is that students who obtain low-paid jobs in the short vacations will be penalised because of the type of job that they tend to take. When I was a student, my friends washed dishes in restaurants, swept the refectory floors, worked in the local hospital or took jobs in the lower-paid manufacturing industries. One of the jobs was to pack toys in boxes for which they were paid at a low hourly rate.
The jobs that students do influence their ability to claim unemployment benefit if they are available for work but cannot get it during other periods when they qualify, because of the income cutoff point in the regulations.
The argument against the regulations relates to the level of the student grant. The student grant is totally unsatisfactory and should be increased substantially. To remove the possibility of students receiving unemployment benefit by such regulations is a retrograde step. I hope that the Government will be honest and recognise that if they are to remove unemployment benefit for students they must pay a decent level of grant. That would be a way of eliminating the need for many


students to register as unemployed in the short vacations.
The situation was described graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Students who are over 18 are often dependent in part on their parents and parental contributions. How many students receive those parental contributions? The majority of my student friends did not receive the full parental contribution. Some received none of it. The grant available to them was the reduced student grant, adjusted for the parental contribution which they did not receive.
The removal of the right to claim unemployment benefit is against the advice given to the Government by an independent body which was set up by the Government to give that advice. I shall support my hon. Friends in Lobby against the regulations.

10.55 p.m.

Miss Jo Richardson: The case for students has been argued extremely graphically by my hon. Friends the Members for Wood Green (Mr. Race) and for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I have little to add to their arguments.
Bearing in mind all the difficulties that have arisen from anomalies, parental grants, the need for supplementary benefit on occasions and unemployment benefit, there is a need to have a proper debate on the general principles surrounding student grants. Such a debate would be rewarding, because not only would it be educative for us but it might benefit students in the long run. Students often find themselves in the middle of a great tangle of regulations that they do not understand. They may be forgiven for not understanding them, because, for example, we did not understand the 1975 regulation. We now know that its effect was not intended by the then Labour Government. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, I thought that that Government were being generous. I am sorry that I have been disabused.
I am concerned that the decision of the National Insurance Advisory Committee has not been heeded by the Government. The committee is a distinguished

and august doby. It took time to hear evidence and submissions before coming to a conclusion. If we are to refer matters to NIAC, the Government of the day ought to take notice of its decisions. Bearing in mind the fate of students, I have enormous apprehension about the fate of NIAC's decision on the non-contributory invalidity benefit for married women. After some slight of hand by the previous Government, the issue was referred to NIAC. It may be that NIAC will recommend that more married women should qualify for benefit. Will the Government automatically say " NIAC has said this but we say something else, because if we accept NIAC's decision that will cost us more and we are on a cost-cutting exercise "? If that is to happen, we might as well dispense with NIAC. Let us be honest so that we know where we stand.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I was responsible for referring the disabled housewife issue to NIAC. Perhaps my hon. Friend will recall that on that specific issue the Labour Government undertook to accept the recommendation of NIAC.

Miss Richardson: I accept that. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding me of it. I wish that undertakings were transferable from one Government to another, especially when they involve those who comprise the poorest sections of the community and who need benefit.
One of the submissions received by NIAC on the student unemployment problem was made by Mrs. Audrey Wise when she was chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party social security group. She made an absolutely splendid submission that we all thoroughly supported, but it was her own work. She was, I believe, very influential in forming the judgment of the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
I hope that the Government will think again, but since I suspect that they will not I shall join my hon. Friends in the Lobby in voting against the regulations.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Like my colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very concerned about this matter, particularly because the Minister seems to be justifying it not merely on


the ground of expediency—which seems to me to be the only ground on which she could have justified it—but by trying to dream up some idea of equity. The advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee showed quite clearly that although two people might have been convinced, the majority—six—were not. There is very little ground, therefore, for substantiating the case on the basis of equity.
The only case that could be put forward is on the ground of expediency, that there is a lot of administration involved in paying out this unemployment benefit, just as there is a lot of administration involved in paying out supplementary benefit at the same time. There is a very strong argument that much of that administration could be saved if student grants were sufficiently large to remove the necessity for people either to work or get unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit.
The only way to get away from that administrative cost, which benefits no one, is to make sure that student grants are on a sufficiently high level. It is important, therefore, to move to a level of student grant that makes it unnecessary, particulary in a period of high unemployment, for students to be competing with and trying to get jobs from the people who have perhaps a greater need for them.
As I understand the regulations, they would appear to apply only to the two short vacations and not to affect in any way the long vacations. I am not certain whether they have any influence on the level of unemployment benefit paid in the long vacation, because they take away the stepping stones. I should like to have an assurance that as long as the stepping stones were there the unemployment benefit could continue for most of the time that a student was following a three-year course. If the stepping stones are taken away, will it still be possible for a person to claim unemployment benefit in each of the long vacations if he is unable to get employment? I should like to have an assurance that it is not a back-door way of taking away the benefit applying to the longer period.
It is high time that we got away from all these anomalies. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr.

Rooker) mentioned the conflict as to cost—whether it was £4 million or £10 million. I suspect that one of the reasons why the cost has been rather lower in some years is that it is only gradually that students find out what is their entitlement. Just as it is suggested that the House was not very clear when it passed the original legislation, it is also clear that many students did not realise their entitlement. It is only gradually that the word gets round among students and more and more take up their entitlement. I suspect, therefore, that the saving will be rather higher than the £4 million claimed by the Minister.
The most important thing to do is to get support for students in their grants and to make sure that those grants are adequate in themselves and are not dependent on parental means tests, which result in many students failing to get the full amount of their grant.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being present at the beginning of the debate. A very strong point should be made about the complete feebleness of the Department's reply as set out in the NIAC report and as to the continued belief of NIAC that this instrument represents discrimination against a particular group—that is, students—and erodes the whole contributory principle.
The NIAC report states that the main point made by the objectors
 is that the regulations discriminate unfairly against students. It is argued that a person who contributes to the scheme in the normal way should be able to receive benefits without satisfying additional conditions and that the imposition of an additional condition is a breach with the contributing principle and an attempt to introduce means-testing.
The report continues:
 The Department claim that the regulations do not discriminate against students, but take account of the favourable position in which students now find themselves vis-à-vis the general body of employed earners.
That is an astonishing statement and there is no evidence to support it. Students are presently some of the most disadvantaged people in the community. It continues:
 and seek to redress the balance by imposing a more effective test of a student's entry into the employment field. … The Department do not accept that the draft regulations breach the contributory principle; in fact "—


it has suddenly wished it up from somewhere—
 special conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit have existed for many years for seasonal workers and share fishermen.
I do not know what a share fisherman is, but I can recognise an argument from expediency. For the Department to try to justify that major change against a substantial body of individuals in the community by ancient regulations that affect share fishermen is an extraordinary piece of casuistry. It needs to do better than that. That argument will not convince.
These regulations were brought in because students started exerting their rights as individuals who are entitled to benefit. It seems that the Department does not like individuals who suddenly discover that they have a right under law, as passed by Parliament, to claim certain benefits. If the hon. Lady intends to respond to every group in the community that suddenly becomes aware of its rights by changing the rule because too many people are starting to claim money to which they are entitled, we shall go on for ever and eventually erode every principle that we have laid down in Parliament.
From one of my brief sojourns in the Department of Education and Science two of three years ago, I learnt that the image of the student among civil servants is too often that of a rather well-heeled 18-yearold. They see all students as resembling their own youngsters. The civil servants dealing with these matters are usually approaching the age of 50 and sending their youngsters off to higher education. The profile of the student body, however, has changed out of all recognition since the Second World War. Some come from disadvantaged homes, some have broken off relationships with their parents for various reasons, others are married and some are living together in a stable relationship. They cover a wide range of ages and are not just within the 18-to-21 age bracket.
It is gross that, although they qualify in every other way for a benefit, simply because they are students Parliament should discriminate and introduce an instrument of this kind because too many people are claiming. I believe that my hon. Friends are right to vote on this issue, and I shall join them in the Lobby.

11.8 p.m.

Mrs. Chalker: I should like first to put the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) out of his misery about share fishermen. I thought at first that I had misread my notes and it should be " shore " fishermen, but share fishermen it is. I quote from national insurance leaflet No. 47 for the hon. Member's future reference:
 You are regarded as a seagoing share fisherman if: you are ordinarily employed in the fishing industry (not under a contract of service) as master or crew member of a British fishing boat manned by more than one person and you are paid in whole or in part by a share of the profits or gross earnings of the boat.
One is regarded as an onshore share fisherman if one is paid once again by a share of the profits or earnings from the boat and has not ceased to be ordinarily engaged in such work. There are a number of conditions. We always learn something new, even in these late night debates, and I have learnt what share fishermen are.

Mr. McNamara: I do not think that the hon. Lady would want to mislead the House. That was only part of the definition of share fishermen. Otherwise, deep sea fishermen would come under the definition that she gave. They do not.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is so good on fishing that I would not dare dally with him over the question. I said that the passage went on and on and that there was a lot more to learn. I shall leave him to his fishermen.
To return to the subject of the use of regulations rather than an Act, it is not necessary to consider amending the Act. Section 20(3) specifically gives the Secretary of State power to impose special conditions in particular cases. The previous Labour Government used this power in the cases of seasonal workers and, once again, our friends the share fishermen. It was on those grounds that the two members of NIAC who supported the regulations under the previous Administration, when they were referred to the committee, felt that this was the way in which the matter should be handled. Therefore, we are not going into a new piece of regulation-making. We are following the pattern set by our predecessors in Government.

Mr. McNamara: Is it not true to say that the share fishermen regulations were made with the knowledge, consent and desire of the share fishermen? These regulations are being made against the complete hostility of students.

Mrs. Chalker: No. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. He will see, if he refers back to the situation existing before the 1975 Act was passed—it came into operation in 1977—that we are in a similar situation with the students to what it was before the passing of the 1975 Act.
I realise as a result of tonight's debate and those on previous occasions that there are many worries about the situations faced by students. It is not for me to take on the brief of another Government Department and try to find solutions to students' problems. However, as students are affected by this, I hope that the House will bear with me while, without going out of order, I try to make a relationship between these regulations and what happens to a student under them.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West asked whether the introduction of these regulations was basically a breach in the contributory principle. The Act had a great deal of bipartisan support at the end of 1975. It allows for the introduction of regulations imposing additional contributions on any category of persons for receipt of unemployment benefit if the Secretary of State considers that in any way the general body of employed earners would otherwise be unfairly treated. This is not new. It was in the Act, which gained the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is noticeable that there are occasions from time to time when an insurance company may have to make a decision in the general interests of the overall members of a fund. That is exactly what is happening on this occasion.

Mr. Christopher Price: I realise that that is in the Act. Can the hon. Lady explain what was meant by the Department about the favourable position of students vis-à-vis the general body of employed earners?

Mrs. Chalker: I mentioned this matter at the beginning of my remarks when the hon. Gentleman was not here. Perhaps he will read them in the Official Report. The basic situation is that be-

cause vacation times come usually within 13 weeks of each other, a student is entitled to clock up his contribution period or his absence-from-work period and can go back to the original entitlement period which contains the starting credits.
If I may continue, as the time is brief and we still have another instrument to consider, there is—

Mr. Price: I may be very obtuse at this time of night, but I understood exactly what the Minister said then, but I did not see how it related to the word " favourable " vis-à-vis anybody else who might have those periods of vacation at those distances away from each other.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall repeat exactly what I said earlier. The position is more favourable for students because the other unemployed earners who are not students rarely have regular and successive periods of unemployment falling within the 13-week period.
In regard to the numbers affected, I, too, was surprised at the figures given to me and, therefore, asked for a further briefing. What appears to have happened is that, compared with the numbers who were registering for unemployment in Christmas and Easter vacations some years ago, the numbers since 1976 have been very much lower than the assumed numbers on which we were working. At Christmas 1977 there were 63,000 students who sought to qualify for unemployment benefit of whom 26,000 actually qualified—namely, 41 per cent. These figures obviously are much lower than the figures on which the figure of £10-million, which was in the earlier regulations, was based. That is why the numbers applying for unemployment benefit in the Easter and Christmas vacations are much lower.
I wish to deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). The point about students and their education grants is that there is a vacation element in the student grant in respect of the short vacations. In 1978–79 it was £111; it will rise by 18 per cent. to £131 to cover the Christmas and Easter vacations in 1979–80. Worked out on a weekly basis, the figure is £16·37½p. However, to avoid confusion the figure generally quoted is the supplementary benefit rate for a non-householder aged 18 and over, including


the non-householder rent addition, of £16·35 a week from November 1979.
Single students who do not satisfy the additional condition for unemployed benefit in the short vacations will not be eligible for supplementary benefit at that time unless they have extra commitments. This is not different. It is exactly the situation that existed earlier. If, however, they have extra commitments, such as rent, the vacation element of the education grant does not affect the entitlement to unemployment benefit in any way at all.
I have re-examined the press notice to which reference was made. It was intended to say that the existing arrangements for supplementary benefit were totally unchanged. The reference in the notice to rent was intended to imply no more than that the existing arrangements for payment of rent in supplementary benefit cases would continue. On that basis, I do not think there is anything for the hon. Gentleman to be concerned about.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) about entitlement in the summer vacation. The benefit entitlement of a student who claims in the summer vacation will be based on the contributions which he has paid in relevant contribution year—that is, the tax year before the calendar year in which the benefit is claimed. Mature students will usually have worked during that year and will qualify for benefit. There is no disadvantage to them in that respect.
A student who has gone from school to university will not be able to carry through the starting credits from that initial year to subsequent summers. There will, therefore, be some effect on future students, but this will not affect the entitlement to unemployment benefit of mature students.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: So the Government are removing the entitlement of young students to benefit not just in the Christmas and Easter vacations but in the summer vacation as well.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. We are not removing that entitlement. We are putting them

all on the same footing from here on. All I am saying is that the mature students, who have the longer record—they are the ones about whom many hon. Members are most concerned—will have no problem unless there is something odd in their record, and that we must then look at their cases sympathetically.
I shall look into one or two of the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), because they have some validity.
We have been concerned to protect the position of the mature student as far as possible. The mature student who has been employed for two years or more before higher education can thoroughly be expected to satisfy the additional condition by virtue of his employment during each short vacation in his first two academic years and during the first part of the Christmas vacation in his third year.
During the latter part of the Christmas vacation in the third year after the start of the new benefit year on the first Sunday in January, and for any further short vacation, satisfaction of the additional condition may vary from student to student. It will depend very much on the work done, but for the majority of students there will be no problem. That is why the words " in general " were used in the press release. Therefore, I cannot give a blanket assurance, but I assure the House that this will be looked at with sympathy. We realise the problem that mature students can face in this respect.
We have also heard tonight about what the Opposition might have done if they had faced this problem. One hon. Member was not satisfied that the previous Government would have continued down this path, for a number of reasons. In fact, the previous Government said that they would consider whether they would go ahead with these or similar regulations. I was involved in these matters then in Opposition, and I know that we were most concerned about how the matter would be rectified because of the difficulties created for Governments in judging the position of other unemployed earners who are not students.
There have been comments tonight about the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I can understand the disquiet voiced by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) about the


housewife's non-contributory invalidity pension. The regulations which the last Government tried to bring in during the long recess in September last year were referred to by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State in the context of persuading them that that should be done. I do not believe that this situation is at all similar. I understand what the hon. Lady said—because we appear to disregard good advice on one issue is no reason not to take it on another—but these are separate issues, which arise for separate reasons.
My right hon. Friend and other Ministers will study the report of the NIAC with the greatest care before taking any further steps, and I am sure that we shall be discussing this fully in the House.
A number of hon. Members have said that we are being unfair to students, but I remember the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) one night, at this Box saying that things occasionally had to be simplified and that sometimes that involved rough justice. I do not

believe that this proposal is rough justice, however, since many students have not had an attachment to earnings in the same way as the normal unemployment earner.

As I said, this is a matter of justice. Something was overlooked in the 1975 Act. Both the previous and present Governments have been seeking to ensure that the vast body of unemployment earners have their rightful benefit and that no one is given a special position without good reason.

It seems to me that the arrangement in these regulations which calls for a student to have shown his link with and to demonstrate his reasonable attachment to employment is undoubtedly fair compared with the position of the general body of earners, and I hope that the House will approve it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 26.

Division No. 71]
AYES
[11.25 p.m.


Alexander, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Aspinwall, Jack
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hannam, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hooson, Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Best, Keith
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Silvester, Fred


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lamont, Norman
Sims, Roger


Blackburn, John
Lang, Ian
Speed, Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Bright, Graham
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Brinton, Timothy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Martin


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lyell, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Brotherton, Michael
MacGregor, John
Tebbit, Norman


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Major, John
Thompson, Donald


Buck, Antony
Mayhew, Patrick
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)


Butcher, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thornton, George


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waddington, David


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wakeham, John


Chapman, Sydney
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Murphy, Christopher
Waller, Gary


Colvin, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John


Cope, John
Neubert, Michael
Watson, John


Costain, A. P.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'rd&amp;Stev'nage)


Cranborne, Viscount
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wheeler, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Parris, Matthew
Wickenden, Keith


Dover, Denshore
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Winterton, Nicholas


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Wolfson, Mark


Elliott, Sir William
Pollock, Alexander



Emery, Peter
Porter, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fairgrieve, Russell
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Carol Mather and


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Renton, Tim
Mr. Tony Newton


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rhodes James, Robert





NOES


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Dobson, Frank
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Grant, George ([...])


Cryer, Bob
Evans, John (Newton)
Harrison, Rt Hon [...]


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Faulds, Andrew
Haynes, David




Homewood, William
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Race, Reg



Parry, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Penhaligon, David
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Andrew [...]. [...]


Question accordingly agreed to.


Resolved,


That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

CHILD BENEFIT AND SOCIAL SECURITY

11.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.
I start with a word about the legal situation on these regulations because I regret that when the draft statutory instrument was first laid it omitted the commencement date of 12 November. The instrument was therefore withdrawn, and on 18 July the draft now before the House was laid. It is in identical terms, except that the date has been inserted. However, the withdraw draft had already been seen and passed without comment by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 17 July. On technical grounds the Committee may have to consider the relaid draft, but it could hardly take a different view on it since the substance in it is no different from that in the first instrument.
In this House there is no formal requirement that the Joint Committee must have considered the draft before a motion to approve it can be moved and debated, and therefore I hope that the House will agree to its going ahead tonight. In another place Standing Orders do so require, and the proceedings on the draft instrument containing the date of 12 November will be taken next week.
Next, I want to explain the purpose of the regulations, which is already well known to most hon. Members. The purpose is to implement in the week beginning 12 November the increase in the premium paid to lone parents, which will raise it from £2 to £2·50 per week, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced to the House on 13 June last.
I know that the House is fully aware of why we decided to increase the premium without at the same time increasing the main rate of benefit. The reason is quite straightforward. If this country is ever to overcome its economic problems we have to control public expenditure, but within that framework it is important to consider carefully the implications of

increasing benefits. My right hon. Friend is statutorily required to review the rate of child benefit every year. The House knows full well that the main rate of child benefit was increased from £3 to £4 in April, only three months ago, and we could not justify making another increase in November when there were so many other competing claims for the restricted resources with which we have to do our best for those in most need.
The same argument is not applicable to the premium or the child benefit increase—the payment which is made for the first child in a single-parent family. Single parents who are caring for and raising children on their own, for whatever reason and in whatever circumstances, can generally be said to have more inescapable expenses. They are at a disadvantage compared with other parents: they do a double job. Therefore, on this occasion the available resources were best concentrated in giving help to those single-parent families. Even though it is an increase of only 25 per cent., I know that it is welcomed.
I emphasise that there are no grounds for drawing the conclusion that we are satisfied with the general level of child benefit. Anyone who has been in Government knows that there are always severe limitations and restrictions that apply, particularly when the spending of money is involved. We should like to do more. The previous Administration found when introducing the child benefit scheme—as the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will well remember—that things cannot always be done as quickly or as generously as the Government wish.
The efficiency of the scheme depends not only on the Department but also on the exchange of information from the claimants to the centre. The scheme has not always been as efficient as we would like. There are delays in the payment of child benefit for some people, as many hon. Members will know. These delays occur because of the combined effects of an unofficial strike at the child benefit centre for five weeks during March and April which was followed by an overtime ban which came into effect before full recovery had been made from the effects of the strike.
At the time of a work peak, when 800,000 children are leaving school, many


constituents are complaining, and I regret the inconvenience that is being caused. In fairness, it must be said that the centre arranges payment for 7 million families and a great majority of these families continue to be paid normally and without interruption. In no way am I trying to minimise the problem for those who are without an order book. However, it is important to see the numbers in perspective and to recognise that the system is not coming to a standstill.
Those most vulnerable to inconvenience are those who have to return their order book to the centre for an alteration that reflects a change in circumstances. These books are being given priority but the delay is being added to by the unreliability of the postal system, which has been variable across the country. Anybody in urgent need should seek help from the local office, which will do what it can to make contact with the centre. The centre is authorised to instruct the local office to make the payments in the case of urgent financial need.
The books for straightforward renewal are on time, and there are over 140,000 books going out each week. They are being despatched between three or four weeks ahead of the first order day. However, when dealing with 800,000 school leavers and an increasing number of changes of circumstances in one-parent families, there is a problem.
I assure the House that in the future we shall be examining the current methods to see how they can be improved and other ways in which to better the administration of the system. The right hon. Member for Salford, West was well aware during his period of office of the enormous problems that were caused. The Government cannot do everything at once, but I assure the House that I shall not leave any stone unturned to try to put right the probem that is hitting the system. I hope that the House will bear with us in trying to get it right in as short a time as possible.
I commend the regulations and the increase in the child benefit premium to the House, and I hope that they will be approved tonight.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: I thank the Minister for her report on the

situation regarding delays in the reissuing of books that have to be varied because of a change in circumstances. The problem is serious, as many hon. Members will know, not only from the number of constituency cases but from their nature.
The Minister suggested that the problem related essentially to the reissuing of books to parents whose circumstances had changed. There is not the same sort of problem with renewals, but I know of difficulties for new applicants who have only recently had children. They are having problems in getting their books issued. I understand that other hon. Members may have similar cases in their constituencies.
For those with a reasonable income already, the delay in the issuing of books is not a great problem, but some of my constituency cases concern parents near or on the poverty line who have been put in serious difficulties. I join the Minister in hoping that the matter will be resolved soon.
I hope that the Minister will make clearer, if not tonight perhaps in Question Time next week, the prospects of solving the present difficulties. I take her point about studying the system to see what improvements can be made. It has been a matter of concern for some time. However, may we expect a resolution of the current problems within a matter of weeks, or are they expected to go on indefinitely? I am not being critical, but that point did not come over clearly in the Minister's speech. I hope that the matter will be resolved quickly so that those in need do not continue to suffer.
This is not the occasion for a major debate on child poverty, but child benefit, along with wider social action—housing, education, social services, employment, amenities and so on—should be seen as central to a progressive community's policy on family support. I start with that general statement.
We support the small and, as I shall seek to show, temporary improvement in financial help for single parents and their first children, but, whatever gloss the Government put on their action, two things are clear.
Before I go on to those matters, I must express my concern at the absence of support by other Ministers from the DHSS on such a matter. It is a little


surprising to see the Under-Secretary on the Front Bench by herself. I say no more than that.
Whatever may have been said by the Minister tonight or by the Secretary of State and other Ministers in recent weeks, it is clear that by failing to increase the standard child benefit from next November and by other actions that the Government are taking in cutting various public services, they are already reneging on pre-election pledges in support of families with dependent children. It is also clear that the 50p supplement in child benefit for lone parents only for this November will prove inadequate with inflation approaching 20 per cent. in the autumn—and the Government must know that.
In his Budget speech on 12 June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated an inflation rate of up to 16 per cent. by the end of September. The following day, the Secretary of State for Social Services announced that inflation would reach 17½ per cent. by November. On 18 June the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that a further 13½ per cent. inflation was forecast by the following September.
Thus, parents—indeed, all of us—have the prospect of 30 per cent. inflation during the next 16 months, and the indications are that the cost of housing, heating, lighting, children's clothing, food and other items which many lone parents in particular are hard put to afford will rise far more sharply than the general index. The conclusion must be that the 50p increase in child benefit for one-parent families will be well eroded in the next few months, even before it is paid out, the Minister cannot deny that.
It follows at the least—I say " at the least "—that if the rate of inflation between now and October points to more than the 17½ per cent. now forecast for November, the Minister should return to the House with proposals for more help for one-parent families. When I pressed the hon. Lady on this at her Department's last Question Time, she got very near to agreeing with me and saying that the matter could be looked at again. I do not have the text with me but I recall the occasion well.
I turn now to the Government's failure to increase the standard rate of child benefit generally for parents with depend-

ent children as distinct from the uprating in the lone parent's supplement. Despite what the hon. Lady has said, it cannot be fairly argued that we could not afford this. However frequently it may be repeated, that cannot be sustained just as a generalisation. Although there has been a big improvement in the real value of child support in recent years, it is still—believe it or not—lower than it was in 1955 when our gross domestic product was well below today's level, whatever our present problems may be.
Moreover, the recent Budget has given tax concessions chiefly to benefit the better off and the childless taxpayer—concessions running to hundreds of millions of pounds. I shall not go over all the ground of the Budget debates now, but that has to be stated as a basic fact. In these circumstances, with all respect to the hon. Lady—and I have respect for her—one cannot get away with a generalised statement such as she made that " the country cannot afford it ". That is sloganising, not argument.
Failure to act on the standard child benefit cannot be justified by the Government on grounds of public expenditure constraints, for the present Secretary of State for Social Services on 12 July 1977 declared
 the Conservative Party's commitment to treat increases in child benefit in the same way as reductions in taxation. In this context the next Conservative Government, which is pledged to major reductions in direct taxation, would regard improvements in child benefits which are replacing child allowances as part of this process "—
not as something separate, but as part of this process. I emphasise that those are the right hon. Gentleman's words, not mine. Where is that pledge today?
I quote again:
 Our tax system must be more family-oriented.
That was the present Secretary of State for Social Services speaking at the 1977 Conservative Party conference, and I agree with those words. He said
 We must concentrate "—
note the word " concentrate "—
 relief where there are dependent children. I give you this pledge: the next Conservative Government will … give it "—
the child benefit scheme—
 top priority.


Note that he said not just " priority ", but " top priority ". Where is that pledge today?
Whatever else may be said in criticism or in support of the Budget, it certainly does not
 concentrate relief where there are dependent children ".
It does not give " top priority " to the child benefit scheme, and it cannot possibly be described as " family-oriented ". Those are the words of the Secretary of State for Social Services when he was in Opposition.
Cuts in housing, nursery education, day nurseries, health care and local amenities to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds is what we shall experience at an increasing rate from now on. This is the year when child tax allowances have finally been phased out. If they had continued, there would have been automatically increased tax relief under the Rooker-Wise amendment to the 1978 Finance Act for families with children. That amendment was supported by no less a person than the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think that it should have been called the Lawson-Rooker-Wise amendment.
The child tax allowances which would otherwise have been automatically increased have now gone. But, apart from the increase for the first child only of lone parents, the child benefit remains at the £4 to which the last Government increased it in April this year. The previous Government proposed to increase the benefit to £4·50 in November to be met out of the Government's Contingency Fund. That would have ensured that dependent children were taken care of during the sharp rise in inflation to which we have now returned—a much sharper rise than was running in April when the decision was made to uprate the child benefit.
The Government have argued that there is now no need to increase child benefit—they have not argued it tonight, but they have done so previously—because it was increased in April, whereas the lone parent supplement was not. That increase in April gave only small net gains to families because April marked the final phasing-out of child tax allowances. Standard rate taxpayers with children under 11 gained a net 37p a

week. With a child aged between 11 and 16 they gained 14p net a week.
The Government then took credit for the increase in income gained by families as shown by the tables published on Budget day. The table showing the effect of the Budget on families with two children under 11 compared families' net weekly income up to the June Budget with their net weekly income before the April 1979 increase in child benefit.
One-parent families with more than one child would gain more from a 50p increase in the standard child benefit than from the 50p increase in the supplement for the first child only. In any case, things have changed since April—and I do not mean only the Government. I refer to the rate of inflation.
I put the following points as factually as I can to the Minister. First, to maintain the November 1978 value of child support in November 1979 under the now increased inflation rate of 17½ per cent would mean child benefit for a child under 11 of £4·27p, for a child aged 11 to 16 of £4·53p, and for a child over 16 of £4·76p.
Second, the low-paid who are below the tax threshold or who pay tax at the 25 per cent. rate—the FIS families—will be hit worst by the VAT increases because they gain least, if anything, from the tax cuts. The best way to compensate them is to increase child benefit.
Third, the Chancellor and Ministers at the DHSS have made much of goods such as children's clothes being zero rated. They will be aware that older and well-developed children cannot get into the zero-rated children's clothes and school uniforms. They are affected sharply by the VAT increase.
Fourth, the Price of school meals will increase by 25p a week in the autumn. School meals of 30p a day will account for over one-third of the weekly child benefit. This affects in particular families with incomes just below the new eligibility limit for free meals and those who do not claim the free meals to which they are entitled.
Fifth, the increase in VAT to pay for the cutting direct taxation reverses the shift of resources from wallet to handbag introduced by child benefit. An increase in the standard child benefit would counteract that.
On the basis of those facts and others, we are justified in pressing the Government hard to uprate the standard child benefit immediately. We are justified in condemning their failure to do that so far.
I ask the Government to give three specific and reasonable undertakings for the near future on which there could be common cause in the House. I hope that the Minister will give a clear answer to these demands. First, will the Government undertake to treat child benefits in the same way as forgone revenue—that is, tax allowances? Second, if the rate of inflation exceeds the 17½ per cent. forecast for November, will the Government undertake to increase the one-parent child benefit supplement beyond the 50p increase which is proposed tonight?
Third, will the Government introduce a further increase in the standard child benefit next April? If it is left until November 1980, families will have to wait 19 months for an increase, during which time their standards of living will fall considerably in relation to childless taxpayers.
There is nothing partisan about those three questions. Hon. Members on both sides are entitled to clear, positive answers on behalf of all families with dependent children. Without clear, positive answers to those three requests, the Government cannot honour their pre-election pledges. I hope that they will give a clear indication that they intend to stand by those pledges tonight by giving the three undertakings that I seek.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Frank Field: The Under-Secretary of State said that the Government were hard-pressed and could not afford to make the increase in child benefit that they would have liked to make. I am sure it was because the hon. Lady wished to be brief that she did not mention that the Budget cut direct taxation to a record degree—by £4·6 billion.
Apart from the few pennies being paid under these regulations to some single parent families, not one penny of that sum goes to families with children. It is difficult for the Government to argue that the resources are not there. It is the will that is not there.
I do not wish to be partisan tonight. I wish to build a bridge across the divide, but it was a bit much for one of my hon. Friends to say that the penalty of increased school meal charges was to be imposed this autumn. Who announced the increased price of school dinners? To their shame, that was done by the Labour Government. Occasionally the House gets family policy right, but it does not consistently get it right. If Ministers are left to their own devices, they soon produce plans that penalise families with children.
I wish to take the debate on from where the Minister left it. The result of the Government's failure to honour their pledge to all families is that rich and poor families have lost out in the Budget. The Government knew that they were vulnerable so their purpose was to construct a fig leaf. The fig leaf was to announce an increase in the premium for single parent families. Some poor families are helped, but I challenge the Government to cite an example where a fig leaf has been bought at a cheaper rate than by increasing the premium for single parent families.
The argument advanced by the hon. Lady does not stand up to examination. The essence of her argument is that the Government are singling out the very poorest families. When she replies, I challenge her to produce one piece of information that indicates that the very poorest families are single parent families. If she draws on Government data—the family expenditure survey—she will find that the largest group of the very poorest families are those who earn their poverty and are two-parent families. There are 190,000 such families. There are fewer than 20,000 single-parent families who live below supplementary benefit level.
The only way of helping the very poorest families is to increase child benefit overall. The Government have not done that largely because they did not understand the commitment that they gave over a long period not only to poor families but all families. I remind the Government of some of their commitments. The Government have already been reminded of some but the point has to be driven home to them and to some of my hon. Friends. I observe the pecking order and I direct attention to the Prime Minister's remarks. The right hon.


Lady has often gone on record as saying that the Conservative Party is the party of the family. That was reflected in the Conservative Party manifesto, which stated that one of the tasks of a Conservative Government would be to support family life. Those commitments do not have shallow roots. They have deep roots within the Conservative Party.
Mr right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to what was said by the Secretary of State at the Tory Party conference. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the need to make the tax system more family oriented. I ask the hon. Lady to tell us what it was which appeared in the Budget that made the tax system more family oriented.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State, the Minister and many other Conservative Members supported an early-day motion that was tabled when the Labour Government were in office. The motion drew attention to the way in which families with children, both rich and poor, were being penalised by inflation much more heavily than childless couples or single people. They argued that in a tax-cutting Budget and a Budget which shifted the burden from direct to indirect taxation there was a crucial need to increase child benefit as part of the package.
What has happened to the increase in child benefit, that family orientation in the Budget, that was so often promised by the Government when they were in opposition? I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a series of questions and he has finally come up with the answers. From them we can see the extent to which the revenue from a record tax-cutting Budget of £4·6 billion goes to families with children. Two questions in particular are of importance. Were the poor protected and were families protected as a result of the Budget? If we look at the lost revenue from those who would have paid the higher rate of tax had the Government's proposals not been brought into effect, we find that 5 per cent. of taxpayers—the richest—benefited from 38 per cent. of all tax cuts. The poorest taxpayers, the 12 per cent. who gained from the reduced band of tax, picked up only 3 per cent. of all tax concessions.

The poor with children were not protected by the general tax cuts made at the top and at the bottom.
Much more important than that, if we look at the distribution or revenue between those families with children and the childless, we find that 53 per cent of taxpayers have children but they picked up only 36 per cent of all the tax revenue given away in the Budget. That is including rich and poor taxpayers.
Tonight's debate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East said, is not a debate about the increase in child benefits, although both he and I have spoken specifically about that. It enables us to draw attention to how rich and poor families have lost as a result of the Budget. One of the sadnesses for me in the Budget debate was that practically the whole of our time was spent in examining whether rich or poor had gained from the Budget; in other words, we looked at the classical vertical distribution of income. Almost no concern was shown by hon. Members for an equally important distribution of resources in our community. I refer to what the economists, in their horrible jargon, call the horizontal distribution of income—that between those with children and those without. The big losers have been families with children, whether those families be rich or poor.
We are asking the Minister this evening to tell us what happened to those pledges in the Conservative manifesto, at Tory Party conference, and in early-day motions, which promised to protect rich and poor families. Why did the Government produce only this miserable, weak little fig leaf to hide their failure to support and protect all families, whether they be rich or poor?
Given that the reason for increasing the single-parent family's premium was that single-parent families are the poorest, will the Minister present one piece of evidence to this House to show that the poorest families are single-parent families and not two-parent families?

12.13 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: At this hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not suitable to dilate at length on the Government's whole policy on family benefit, but there are several points that ought to be made about the proposed


regulations, if only because they apply to such a very large number of cases.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) have drown attention to the whole field of family support and child endowment, and it is perfectly proper that they should do so, because what we do for one-parent families must be seen in the context of the programme for family support. I am quite sure that Conservative Members who are concerned about family poverty are just as disappointed as Opposition Members that in the Budget the Government were not able to make a further increase in child benefit.
It is not quite true to say that families received nothing out of the Budget. As I have pointed out on very many occasions, now that the national insurance contributions are earnings-related and not flat rate, they are in fact just another branch of the income tax. If there is a cut in national insurance contributions or in income tax—it makes no difference which—the families are receiving the same benefits for lower contributions. That is the strategy that the Government have followed this time, but I still think that the case remains unanswerable for an increase in child benefit as soon as the economy is able to afford it. Therefore I hope that we shall see it even before the end of this year.
In the case of the one-parent family, the Government felt able to make a small but extremely welcome increase, and I want to make only two points in regard to that. First, it is a benefit for one-parent families as of right. It is not a means tested benefit. It is based on the identification of the special status of the one-parent family. That needs to be stressed. It is important, and although we are moving only slowly towards the implementation of Finer's recommendations, it is a step in the right direction in that the payment is based on the status of the family and is not determined in relation to its need.
Secondly, this is a benefit that is not paid in respect of each child but of each family. Therefore what we see is a positive householder's allowance coming into being. I have tried on many occasions to draw attention to the need for a positive householder's allowance to be included in the whole structure of national

insurance. It is latent there in the figures, but it should be stressed that it is there. In the case of one-parent families, the Government are coming out into the open and making a householder's allowance, and that is a welcome development. I should like to see a housing allowance made a postive element in the provision of minimum incomes across the board. It should be a recognisable element in the calculation of all national insurance entitlements and net personal taxation. A new look is desperately needed at the whole basis of housing subsidies and household support, as distinct from the purely personal allowances in the system of minimum income guarantees.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. John Sever: I have two suspicions. First, I suspect that the hon. Lady would rather be bringing to the House a somewhat more exciting document. The flicker of a charming smile seems to indicate that I am right. Secondly, I believe that several hon. Members would rather be discussing the ways in which more help can be given to families in greatest need—which includes some of the groups that we are discussing. At this late hour it is difficult to encourage many right hon. and hon. Members to take part in the debate, although if the Government had found time to extend the subject of the debate many would have been pleased to join a wider ranging debate.
I do not wish to misinterpret the hon. Lady, but in opening the debate I believe that she indicated that she was not satisfied with the levels of child benefit. The hon. Lady has a public record to establish her in the category of those hon. Members who wish to see some progress in that area. Whatever influence she is able to bring to bear on her ministerial colleagues to achieve improvements will be warmly supported by many hon. Members throughout the House.
We are looking somewhat to the future. The regulations will not be with us until November, and we are considering how the Government might approach child benefits and other social benefits to assist the lower paid and disadvantaged in our community. The hon. Lady said that she wanted to make the fullest possible investigation throughout the system. I hope that that is so, and in that she


will be supported by Labour Members. I urge on her the necessity to do that and to cast the net as wide as possible for information and representation from all groups.
The hon. Lady referred to the difficulties encountered by many families because of, among other things, the postal disturbances. Considerable efforts were made by various offices in the hon. Lady's Department throughout the country. I pay tribute to those in Birmingham, Ladywood which experience special difficulty as the recent Birmingham post office bombings were both within my constituency. I know that they caused great upheaval to the system. The staff of the local offices concerned responded tremendously well to reduce to the minimum the inconvenience occasioned to many families.
My constituency is characterised by large numbers of disadvantaged families, those on low incomes, and a great many on no income at all other than what the State can provide. Mention was made of families with two parents and those with only one. I should like to concentrate on one-parent families.
I recently visited a primary school within my constituency. I was told by the headmaster that more than 50 per cent. of all the children throughout the school coming from the catchment area had ony one parent. The 50p mentioned in this measure will not go a long way towards helping the vast number of my constituents who look to any Government for the help that they desperately need and justifiably deserve to get from one week to the next. By the time the 50p is received it will have been whittled away by the grabbing hand of galloping inflation. I know that the Minister will bear that point in mind when she considers the benefit in the coming 12 months. The benefit will have to be beefed up again in the autumn to keep pace with inflation and people's genuine and reasonable aspirations.
The Government have not given any indication, in their fiscal and monetary measures, of their promises made before the election. I suspect that many votes which the Conservatives gleaned at the ballot boxes a few weeks ago were based on the promises which were made in that campaign but which clearly have not

been delivered. The Government have an obligation to fulfil those promises. They can start with those who are most disadvantaged in our community.
I ask the hon. Lady to give the deepest possible consideration to the three points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), which represent the feelings and desires of so many thousands of disadvantaged families throughout the country. They are clearly looking to the Government to fulfil those promises. If they find reasonable and helpful responses to the points made, the Government may, with some justification, say that they are looking after the most disadvantaged. If they fail to do so the hon. Lady need not be surprised if people become more and more annoyed and disenchanted with what is proposed for their future.

12.23 a.m.

Mrs. Chalker: By leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the points made. I shall try not to deserve your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by straying too far from the order. However, in discussing this issue it is almost impossible not to stray into other areas.
I do not think that the House is in any doubt—as obviously the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) is in no doubt—about our commitment to the child benefit scheme. However, some points were raised on which the record should be set straight.
First, the Government have never been in any doubt about the importance of the family and the importance of child benefit in the family budget. When we came into office on 3 May, the public sector borrowing requirement was £2,000 million worse than we had been led to believe. Therefore, we must get the economy under control and first of all seek to protect those who are most in need.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: By attacking families.

Mrs. Chalker: We shall not attack families. I am about to come to points which were totally ignored by certain Opposition Members in this debate.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Opposition spokesman on secial security matters. We look forward to seeing him at


the Box on future occasions. He began by referring to the problems which are being experienced at the child benefit centre at Washington. This has been a long-running problem, as the right hon. Gentleman will readily acknowledge. The problem has been greatly exacerbated by the unofficial strike in March and April this year. Just as things were beginning to improve, an overtime ban was imposed and a work-to-rule.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what I thought would help to resolve the matter. Certainly resumption of normal working would be the best way to help families who are without benefit. But resolving current problems will not resolve the total problem. That is why I can assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) that in looking at the system, we shall examine not just what has happened in latter months but the whole method to see whether it can be improved. Having made those comments, I wish to pay tribute to the staff who are working very hard to overcome the problems caused by industrial action. I know that many of the staff have made extra efforts.
I turn to the question of new claims to benefit. The right hon. Member for Brent, East asked about new births. This aspect is being cleared by the child benefit centre within three weeks of receipt of information. However, we find that claims are not being received until at least five weeks after the birth. Therefore, there is already an inbuilt delay in the first five weeks, and that delay is to be taken with the troubles of which I have already spoken. As long as the overtime ban lasts, the position at the centre will remain difficult in respect of new births. We are giving immediate attention to claims from those who are most in need. Any family that is in genuine need has only to go to the local DHSS office and special measures will be taken to try to help resolve the difficulties.
It is always a matter of regret when a Government find that they cannot do what they very much would like to do. But I remind the House that child benefit was increased last April from £3 to £4—

Mr. Rooker: Under a Labour Government.

Mrs. Chalker: It did not escape my notice that there was then a Labour Government or that an election was on the way, but that is beside the point. We are aware of the problems of many families. We are also aware that it is the prime duty of the Government to get the economy of the country straight. We shall then be able to undertake many of the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) in achieving a proper family policy—a policy on which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) often states his views.
There is one point which has been totally overlooked by Opposition speakers in this debate. I refer to the fact that there are now 1,300,000 fewer people paying tax than was the case before the Budget. The whole of the problem of the complications between taxation and child benefit has at long last been resolved by the introduction of the full child benefit—a year later than we had hoped—and the reduction of the child tax allowances. But I take the point that the two systems still do not work in tandem.
As for the comparison with 1955, I agree that today the figure would need to be £4·14 rather than £4 but there were far fewer taxpayers in 1955 and there were three reduced rates of tax. The non-taxpayer and those on reduced rates receive more child support than ever before and for basic rate taxpayers it is higher than in earlier years.
On the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, the proportion of one-parent families who are poor is higher than the proportion of two-parent families, although the absolute number of two-parent families who are poor is higher.

Mr. Field: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Chalker: I think I should continue, since the hour is late, but I know of the hon. Member's concern on this issue. I study carefully everything he says and writes. We shall see what more can be done for those in most need. I am sure that that is where he wants the help to be concentrated.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East asked for an undertaking that I would treat child benefit as forgone revenue and quoted from the present Secretary of State in July 1977. Any increase in child


benefits adds directly to the public sector borrowing requirement, irrespective of the method of accounting. Whether we are talking about the Red Book or the Blue Book, the relationship between personal tax allowances and child benefit is something that we are still considering, and we shall continue to do so when reviewing the rate of child benefit.
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I should like to give him tonight, because I am not the Secretary of State. Therefore, I ask him to accept that I shall bring his comments to the notice of my right hon. Friend in the morning, and I hope that in due course he will be satisfied with the Secretary's of State's answer.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that if the rate of inflation should exceed the estimate of the Government statistical services of 17·5 per cent. between November 1978 and November 1979, we shall take other steps to help one-parent families. He wanted us to increase the supplement for the first child in that family beyond 50p. As he knew before asking the question, I am not a Treasury Minister and cannot answer that question. I am appraised of the problem for one-parent families, which is much more than just financial. The right hon. Gentleman has my assurance that I shall fight and fight again to ensure that the right help is given whenever it can be achieved.
I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's third question, willing though I would be to give him my personal preference which would be to increase child benefit as soon as we can. But I can assure him that in our review of everything going on in the Department, we are extremely conscious of the growing importance of child benefit to low paid working families and of the changing role which this benefit can now play in their budgeting.
With those assurances, which are as far as I can genuinely go tonight, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that our concern for the family is in no way diminished by the economic situation we have inherited. I do not want to end on a discordant note, but politics is the art of the possible, and our aim is to make it possible to help families much

more than they have been helped in the past.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Freeson: It is quite clear that on not one of the issues upon which the Government, when in Opposition, were prepared to declare themselves is the hon. Lady in a position to give an undertaking tonight. I made three requests for undertakings. She said that I would understand that she could not speak in place of other Ministers. I put it to her that she is a member of a Government who take a collective responsibility.
Each of the undertakings that I sought was totally in line with declarations that have been made by the Secretary of State for Social Services, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Government within recent times, and not one of those undertakings, even as a general objective, has been given. We deplore that. We can do no more than that tonight, but I say quite clearly that at the earliest practical opportunity we shall seek to raise this question of child poverty for debate in the House in order to seek as soon as possible the general undertakings that I have sought tonight.
People in poverty can get no pleasure or satisfaction out of the general expressions of concern that we have received, and which I do not question. They will get satisfaction out of actions in line with pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Secretary of State for Social Services and which are on record at Tory Party conferences. We shall return to this issue; it will not go away.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Motion made,

That Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Andrew Bennett, Mr. R. B. Cant, Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth, Mr. Tony Durant, Sir Nigel Fisher, Mr. Percy Grieve, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Charles R. Morris, Mr. Arthur Palmer, and Mr. Frederick Willey, be members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Hon. Members: Object.

HEATHROW—GATWICK HELICOPTER LINK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Keith Wickenden: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise, even at this late hour, a question of some importance to my constituency, the Heathrow—Gatwick helicopter link. A year or so ago, the British Airports Authority announced its intention of applying to the Civil Aviation Authority for a licence to operate the link between our two principal London airports.
That announcement caused a great deal of concern amongst my constituents, many of whom saw the new service as an unexpected extension of Gatwick airport's activities. Then, as now, there was much worry about the increasing effect of the airport's intrusion into the lives of my constituents. Since then very little has changed, except that the degree of that intrusion has been ever-increasing.
I am conscious that my concern is equally shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), Esher (Mr. Mather), and Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher made a powerful speech in the House on 23 March 1978, in which he described the new helicopter link as being a cautionary tale of how not to inaugurate a new air route. Now, with the benefit of the first year's operations of the helicopter link, I can add to my hon. Friend's strictures. Not only was it a cautionary tale of how not to inaugurate a new service but published results of the first year's operations amply justify the critics.
Before turning to detailed criticism of the helicopter link, I should make it quite clear that in no sense can I be described as being anti-airport. I fully recognise that, whilst any major international airport inevitably affects the living standards of those in the area, much employment and prosperity are created by the very existence of the facility. The effects on living conditions are by no means all detrimental.
Nor am I opposed in principle to the concept of an air link between Heathrow and Gatwick. But what I do say is that the decision to use a Sikorsky S61 helicopter was bad at the time it was taken and that it can now be demonstrated beyond contradiction that the British Airports Authority's decision to apply for a licence to continue the service, largely in its present form, is wrong to the point of absurdity.
I suspect that there is no one in the authority who is big enough to admit that a mistake has been made. In the business world in which some of us have to operate it is not of itself reprehensible to make a mistake. There was a great Member of this House who once commented that those who did not make a mistake seldom created anything. But it is unforgivable not to recognise an error within a reasonable period, and it is even worse to compound the damage by pretending that all is well when the reverse is patently the case.
The effects of the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link are threefold. First, it has a considerable environmental impact. The Sikorski S61 helicopter creates a great deal of noise, and the effect of its noise is materially more than that of a fixed-wing aircraft of similar payload. Apart from the greater engine noise, helicopters create a particularly unpleasant sound because of the slapping action of the main rotors. In addition a helicopter is slower than a similar-capacity fixed-wing aircraft, and consequently the noise created is above a particular area for a longer period. It also cruises at a lower altitude than does a similar fixed-wing craft.
The reason given by the authority for the choice of the machine is contained in a letter dated 30 June 1977, addressed to the chairman of the Gatwick airport consultative committee. Fixed-wing aircraft were ruled out because.
 it would mean using runway slots which are already limited at times at both airports.
My hon. Friend the Minister is greatly experienced in aviation matters. I am sure that he would have shared my surprise when at the holding point at Gatwick runway on one occasion I observed the air-link helicopter making a conventional runway approach. I inquired of air traffic


control why that should be and was told that it was a safety requirement that the helicopter should make such approaches.
Therefore, the 1977 reason for choosing that machine, which seemed difficult to gainsay at the time, is nullified. The ability of a helicopter not to use a runway is its main advantage over a fixed-wing aircraft. In all other respects that I can think of—noise, capital cost, speed, operating costs and fuel consumption—a similar capacity fixed-wing aircraft wins hands down.
Secondly, the operation of the link in its first year reportedly caused a drain on public funds amounting to £400,000, a loss said to be announced by the authority and quoted in the Financial Times on 8 June 1979. I should say that I have learnt only today that the authority has since denied that the loss was of that order, although it is apparently unable to say just what it was. I was surprised that it was £400,000, because a few years ago I was involved in a very detailed study of the operation of this craft, and, knowing what the gross revenue had to be, I could not see how the loss could possibly have been contained to £400,000 on any normal conventional accounting method. If we accept that it is that figure, it is a considerable sum.
Before I go on to that, I again want to say that I am happy to pay tribute to the BAA, which has a commendable record of not continually calling on the Government for subventions. In fact, the authority has for many years operated in surplus. Furthermore, it has funded its capital expenditure from its own cash flow, and I can only add that I wish that all nationalised industries could claim a similar record.
Every penny that the authority loses unnecessarily, even though it is in overall credit, comes from public funds, and there is the clearest possible duty on the officers of the authority to minimise losses on any operation as soon as the reason for that is identified and once it has been established that the losses can be stopped without unreasonable loss of service to the public.
If, as I fear, I am told that these financial considerations are not for my hon. Friend's Department, I hope that the appropriate committee, whether it be the

Public Accounts Committee or the newly established Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, will inquire rigorously into this apparent waste of public money and, if necessary, take to task those who are responsible.
To put the sums into a more readily understood context, the authority, in its first year of operation, through its operating agents charged each passenger for each single journey the sum of £12, and then by some masterpiece of entrepreneurial flair succeeded in losing a further £6·50 for each such passenger carried. It would have been cheaper, assuming that the passengers could have been persuaded to travel three to a car, to have sent the passengers between the airports free in a private hire car. I take as my authority for that statement figures quoted to me this week by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association.
Thirdly, the decision to operate the Sikorsky S61 helicopter has caused a considerable waste of aircraft fuel at a time of rapidly increasing fuel costs and a shortage of supply. This craft at its normal cruising speed uses 1,100 lb.—that is half a ton—of fuel per flying hour, and I make no allowance for extra fuel during take-off and landing.
Since we know that in its first year the service carried an average of about eight passengers per 15-minute flight, we can calculate that a ton of fuel has been used to carry about 65 passengers between Heathrow and Gatwick. A fixed-wing aircraft of similar payload is significantly more fuel efficient, and it can easily again be calculated that the decision to use this helicopter has, in its first year of operation, meant a waste of about 450 tons of aviation fuel, and I calculate that to be about 150,000 gallons. I think that one is entitled to ask: how can average people be expected to understand the need for fuel economy when respected Government agencies behave in this matter? To have made the original calculation was bad enough; to ask to be permitted to go on making it for a further period of two years, which is what is now being asked, is little short of irresponsible.
Again I suspect that in his reply my hon. Friend will tell me that, whatever the merits of my argument, these are all matters within the competence of the BAA. Technically that may well be so,


but, if I may say so, my hon. Friend is in a unique position. He is greatly respected in aviation circles, partly because of this considerable personal knowledge of the industry, and partly because of the great care and interest that he takes in the exercise of his duties, and I am deeply grateful to him for the considerable attention that he has already given to representations from my constituency on the subject of Gatwick.
Somebody in the BAA needs to be persuaded to take the eminently reasonable and sensible decision either to close down the link—and it does, after all, cater for less than one-fifth of 1 per cent. of passengers using the two airports—or, if that is not to be, to replace the Sikorsky S61 helicopter with a fixed-wing craft. I am convinced that nobody could be better qualified than my hon. Friend to exercise that persuasion.

12.50 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): Several hon. Members have written to me on various aspects of the helicopter service and the forthcoming Civil Aviation Authority hearing into the possible renewal or extension of the service in future.
However, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) on having had the good fortune to obtain an Adjournment debate on the matter so soon after entering the House. As a former practitioner of the art of using written parliamentary questions to squeeze out information concerning subjects of interest, I notice that my hon. Friend has found how to do that with considerable effect.
My hon. Friend will understand that I am unable to go too far in some directions because I might be trapped into commenting upon an application that is awaiting hearing by the Civil Aviation Authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ultimately find himself in the position of acting as the last appellate authority in that matter. I hesitate to nitpick, but I understand that it was not the British Airports Authority that applied for the service. The application was made by British Caledonian Airways and British Airways Helicopters Ltd. However, my hon. Friend is right, in saying that it is basically the

desire of the BAA to run the service which has caused it to be run.
My hon. Friend said that he believed that it was a mistake to use helicopters. Again, I shall be careful about the matter because an application has been made for the use of fixed-wing aircraft on the route. I shall not prejudge that application in any way. He said that helicopters have an adverse effect on the environment. There is some merit in that claim, but it is not entirely proven. On this route fixed-wing aircraft are not necessarily able to fly higher. He commented upon the strange sight of a helicopter flying a conventional instrument approach, arriving at an airport that is short of slots or approaches to the runways. That is not the only part of the journey where the helicopter's unique abilities are of great use. It would be difficult to persuade air traffic control that the fixed-wing aircraft could necessarily follow the same route paths as the helicopter is allowed to do.
Losses have been incurred, but they are of the order that were expected when the service started. It was expected to lose money initially for the first two or three years before breaking even.
My hon. Friend commented on the use of fuel by the helicopter as opposed to a fixed-wing link or a link by surface means. I accept that the helicopter uses more fuel to achieve the advantage of a potential vertical take-off and landing. I shall not refer to pounds of fuel because those figures are not generally understood. I am told that the helicopter uses 1·6 gallons of fuel per seat journey and that a limousine carrying two passengers would probably use two gallons of motor spirit for the same journey. That brings the matter into perspective. Of course, the fuel per passenger carried is much more than 1·6 gallons because the helicopter has been operating at a load factor of about 30 per cent. It is not quite as extreme a case as my hon. Friend is prepared to believe.
I should recall the background to the inception of the service. Increasingly, Gatwick and Heathrow need to be regarded as a single London airport with runways and terminals, regrettably, rather widely separated. It is essential that passengers can get swiftly from one part of that combined airport to another. Indeed,


I am told that about 15 per cent. of all passengers through Heathrow are believed to be inter-line passengers. They are seeking to change aircraft. As more traffic goes through Gatwick, the proportion of that 15 per cent. who will require to move from one airport to the other will grow. If we achieve in the near future the transfers of services between Heathrow and Gatwick which we hope to achieve, the need will become much greater.
Many of those 15 per cent. of passengers do not need to go to Heathrow to inter-line. They could go to Rotterdam, Paris or other airports and they may increasingly do so—with a considerable loss to British airlines and to London itself—if there is not a swift, reliable service to connect the two airports.
Those of us who have to make the journey between the two airports by road know that it can be a frustratingly slow one. The helicopter is reliably swift. In its first year, it carried 58,000 passengers, of whom 82 per cent. were transferring between flights.
I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that there is a demand for the service and that the demand will remain until the M25 link is completed, which I am told will probably be in 1984. I hope that I shall also be able to assure him that the CAA will take, and has taken, proper account of the environmental objections and of the possibility of a fixed-wing service with a view to reducing those objections.
The CAA has made plain that it will pay particular attention in its hearing of the new application for the extension of the service to the objections of those who are concerned with the environment gen-

erally and with noise particularly. I am sure that it will do so. It has already been in discussion over improved guidelines on the manner in which it will hear objectors on those grounds. At present, it does not have an obligation necessarily to hear objectors, or any particular objector, on environmental grounds.
Although I see the need for the link, in some form—as does my hon. Friend—I do not prejudge the matter in the sense of saying that it is essential that it should be operated by a helicopter rather than a fixed-wing aircraft or in the opposite sense of saying that it is clear that a fixed-wing aircraft could carry out the service properly.
I join my hon. Friend in expressing admiration for the way in which the British Airports Authority conducts its financial affairs—without constant recourse to new borrowing or grants from the public purse. My hon. Friend should regard that as a token of the basically businesslike way in which the authority operates and a token that it would not persist in a stupidly loss-making exercise if it thought that there was a better way of approaching it or that the whole operation was not worth the candle.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be grateful for what comfort I can give him and I hope also that he will make full use of the opportunities of further expressing his point of view to the Civil Aviation Authority and, indeed, to the British Airports Authority, as one business man to another group of business men, about the continuance of this service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.